Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The non-aggression principle

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:16:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've heard the this doctrine as being of great value to the Ancaps, and really haven't seen anything particularly profound or original in any of it, but perhaps i am missing something. I've read it over and still don't see anything that's all that remarkable; don't get me wrong, it's nice and all, but help me see something that I'm missing.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:26:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I believe libertarianism is also based on the non-aggression principle.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:27:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

LOOOL
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:43:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

It's not so obvious considering that most people seem to think it's perfectly acceptable for government, police, and soldiers to use aggression against people.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:46:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

To those who believe in drug, prostitution, gambling or pornography prohibition, or conscription or preemptive war don't think it's very obvious.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:47:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not obvious, I don't agree with it. It's hard to set down constant rules that govern morality. Think of it like chess - murder, like sacrificing one's queen, is generally wrong, but there are times when it is absolutely necessary.

Take the famous trolley experiment detailed in this forum (I think he calls it the train experiment.) Anyone who answers "no" to the first question, despite saving 4 lives in terms of net value, would be violating NAP by aggressing against the one.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 5:26:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:47:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's not obvious, I don't agree with it. It's hard to set down constant rules that govern morality. Think of it like chess - murder, like sacrificing one's queen, is generally wrong, but there are times when it is absolutely necessary.

Take the famous trolley experiment detailed in this forum (I think he calls it the train experiment.) Anyone who answers "no" to the first question, despite saving 4 lives in terms of net value, would be violating NAP by aggressing against the one.

The application of any ideal is usually unrealistic, but as a principle it's fairly common sensical, Golden Rulish.
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 5:37:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:46:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

To those who believe in drug, prostitution, gambling or pornography prohibition, or conscription or preemptive war don't think it's very obvious.

what about human trafficking, hit men, thieves, that lot? capitalism?
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 6:45:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 5:37:27 AM, el-badgero wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:46:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

To those who believe in drug, prostitution, gambling or pornography prohibition, or conscription or preemptive war don't think it's very obvious.

what about human trafficking,

Aggression
hit men

Aggression
, thieves, that lot?

Aggression
capitalism?

Huh?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 9:29:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 5:26:29 AM, innomen wrote:
The application of any ideal is usually unrealistic, but as a principle it's fairly common sensical, Golden Rulish.

yeah, and what matter's that golden rule?

there are plenty of instances in which it would be tossed wholesale simply to fulfill my cares.. In Fact the only reason one's actions would ever accord with it is b/c your cares, given the nature of the world, accord with it.

if necessary I would steal to feed myself, my children, friends, sufferers generally even..
and to your "non-aggression" I'll flip the birdie!

if you could explain why I should hold to the principle.. and Not do what I will.. then you'd be explaining it to be a Moral(/ethically relevant) principle
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 9:59:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 6:45:12 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/11/2011 5:37:27 AM, el-badgero wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:46:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

To those who believe in drug, prostitution, gambling or pornography prohibition, or conscription or preemptive war don't think it's very obvious.

what about human trafficking,

Aggression
hit men

Aggression
, thieves, that lot?

Aggression

all things you'd want prohibited, no? or will people just not partake in these kinda things just because we're naturally nice like that? or what?

capitalism?

Huh?

they're of capitalism, its way of life. hardly of communism? anything else is somewhere in between..
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 10:39:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 9:59:49 AM, el-badgero wrote:
At 9/11/2011 6:45:12 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/11/2011 5:37:27 AM, el-badgero wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:46:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

To those who believe in drug, prostitution, gambling or pornography prohibition, or conscription or preemptive war don't think it's very obvious.

what about human trafficking,

Aggression
hit men

Aggression
, thieves, that lot?

Aggression

all things you'd want prohibited, no? or will people just not partake in these kinda things just because we're naturally nice like that? or what?

I believe we're talking about the non-aggression principle right now, not Ancap.

capitalism?

Huh?

they're of capitalism, its way of life. hardly of communism? anything else is somewhere in between..

How so? Are you suggesting theft, trafficking, or organized assassinations never occurred in the Soviet Union? I doubt it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 10:44:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 9:29:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/11/2011 5:26:29 AM, innomen wrote:
The application of any ideal is usually unrealistic, but as a principle it's fairly common sensical, Golden Rulish.

yeah, and what matter's that golden rule?

there are plenty of instances in which it would be tossed wholesale simply to fulfill my cares.. In Fact the only reason one's actions would ever accord with it is b/c your cares, given the nature of the world, accord with it.

if necessary I would steal to feed myself, my children, friends, sufferers generally even..
and to your "non-aggression" I'll flip the birdie!

if you could explain why I should hold to the principle.. and Not do what I will.. then you'd be explaining it to be a Moral(/ethically relevant) principle

If you would like to talk about the justification of the non-aggression principle, there are a few paths you could take. I personally prefer argumentation ethics, however most libertarians subscribe to moral natural rights based theories. That is, everyone has rights and it is immoral to violate them.

If you're talking about the bond of people to follow the non-aggression principle, that problem falls on an ethical theory(divine command, utilitarianism, altruism, exc.). That is why I prefer argumentation ethics. It's value free. It doesn't claim that you should refrain from something, only that it is impossible to justify it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:17:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 5:26:29 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:47:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's not obvious, I don't agree with it. It's hard to set down constant rules that govern morality. Think of it like chess - murder, like sacrificing one's queen, is generally wrong, but there are times when it is absolutely necessary.

Take the famous trolley experiment detailed in this forum (I think he calls it the train experiment.) Anyone who answers "no" to the first question, despite saving 4 lives in terms of net value, would be violating NAP by aggressing against the one.

The application of any ideal is usually unrealistic, but as a principle it's fairly common sensical, Golden Rulish.

Try telling the Golden Rule to a sadomasochist. I'm being a little nit picky with the Golden Rule, but I'm just trying to push a point.

There's more issues with NAP, like how aggression is defined. Are taxes a form of aggression if taxes are coercion? It doesn't even seem to rule out all initiation of aggression because pre-emptive strikes could be justified on the grounds of the threat of aggression, which appears to be justified under NAP.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:25:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most people think they operate under the non-aggression principle.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:30:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 11:25:16 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Most people think they operate under the non-aggression principle.

do you think you do?

should you so operate?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:30:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 11:30:15 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/11/2011 11:25:16 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Most people think they operate under the non-aggression principle.

do you think you do?

should you so operate?

Should I?! O.O
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:33:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
non-aggression principle

Response: http://www.terebess.hu...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 11:43:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 11:33:31 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
non-aggression principle

Response: http://www.terebess.hu...

"And now I'm going to tell you something - about man's true form. His eyes yearn to see colors, his ears to hear sound, his mouth to taste flavors, his will and spirit to achieve fulfillment. A man of the greatest longevity will live a hundred years; one of middling longevity, eighty years; and one of the least longevity, sixty years. Take away the time lost in nursing illnesses, mourning the dead, worry and anxiety, and in this life there are no more than four or five days in a month when a man can open his mouth and laugh. Heaven and earth are unending, but man has his time of death. Take this time-bound toy, put it down in these unending spaces, and whoosh! - it is over as quickly as the passing of a swift horse glimpsed through a crack in the wall! No man who is incapable of gratifying his desires and cherishing the years fate has given him can be called a master of the Way. What you have been telling me - I reject every bit of it! Quick, now - be on your way. I want no more of your talk. This `Way' you tell me about is inane and inadequate, a fraudulent, crafty, vain, hypocritical affair, not the sort of thing that is capable of preserving the Truth within. How can it be worth discussing!"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 11:17:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/11/2011 5:26:29 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:47:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's not obvious, I don't agree with it. It's hard to set down constant rules that govern morality. Think of it like chess - murder, like sacrificing one's queen, is generally wrong, but there are times when it is absolutely necessary.

Take the famous trolley experiment detailed in this forum (I think he calls it the train experiment.) Anyone who answers "no" to the first question, despite saving 4 lives in terms of net value, would be violating NAP by aggressing against the one.

The application of any ideal is usually unrealistic, but as a principle it's fairly common sensical, Golden Rulish.

Try telling the Golden Rule to a sadomasochist. I'm being a little nit picky with the Golden Rule, but I'm just trying to push a point.

Golden rule =/= NAP

There's more issues with NAP, like how aggression is defined. Are taxes a form of aggression if taxes are coercion?

Yes
It doesn't even seem to rule out all initiation of aggression because pre-emptive strikes could be justified on the grounds of the threat of aggression, which appears to be justified under NAP.

It does.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 3:25:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:38:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:17:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
What, were you expected to read about the non-aggression principle, go into a state of shock, change your entire value system, and become an anarchist?

I just don't understand the reverence over the obvious and mundane.

That is my view on objectivism as well.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 3:51:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Golden rule =/= NAP

I know. Just addressing a point on Golden Rule to Innomen.

Yes

So if I don't pay my taxes and a cop comes to arrest me, I can shoot him?

It does.

Well maybe that's part of the ambiguity. Wikipedia defines aggression as justified given "the threat of such."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 9:23:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 3:51:58 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Golden rule =/= NAP

I know. Just addressing a point on Golden Rule to Innomen.

Yes

So if I don't pay my taxes and a cop comes to arrest me, I can shoot him?

Are we talking about moral or legal justification?

It does.

Well maybe that's part of the ambiguity. Wikipedia defines aggression as justified given "the threat of such."
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 9:28:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are we talking about moral or legal justification?

Moral. I understand you can say "yes" here in which case NAP seems to imply anarchy.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 12:03:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 9:28:27 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Are we talking about moral or legal justification?

Moral. I understand you can say "yes" here in which case NAP seems to imply anarchy.

I think it does, or better stated, it implies illegitimacy of compulsory government. The NAP would not preclude panarchy though.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 12:08:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:16:02 PM, innomen wrote:
I've heard the this doctrine as being of great value to the Ancaps, and really haven't seen anything particularly profound or original in any of it, but perhaps i am missing something. I've read it over and still don't see anything that's all that remarkable; don't get me wrong, it's nice and all, but help me see something that I'm missing.

it seems mundane if you don't take it seriously. it sounds nice, but it doesn't actually say much. if you DO take it seriously you end up with anarchy. its useful because if you just hear it without thinking through the implications of it it sounds obvious, so people are unlikely to challenge it in debate... but then once you realize how many activities can fall under the umbrella of "aggression" it starts to sound absurd.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 12:19:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 12:03:46 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/11/2011 9:28:27 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Are we talking about moral or legal justification?

Moral. I understand you can say "yes" here in which case NAP seems to imply anarchy.

I think it does, or better stated, it implies illegitimacy of compulsory government. The NAP would not preclude panarchy though.

Why stop at a police officer? NAP justifies slaughtering most if not all of the government in your interpretation. All in the name of non-aggression.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 1:12:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What I would like to know is how the NAP applies to children, animals and the mentally disabled. I've always seen it break down around that.

It isn't violence to not feed and properly care for children, animals and the mentally disabled but it sure is abuse.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord