Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Non Aggression Principle

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:53:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good as a general principle, but implementing it to its absolute form leads to some absurdities. For example, under the non-aggression principle it would be morally permissible to let your baby starve and die since you don't have a positive duty to protect the baby.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:53:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Good as a general principle, but implementing it to its absolute form leads to some absurdities. For example, under the non-aggression principle it would be morally permissible to let your baby starve and die since you don't have a positive duty to protect the baby.

So your objection to the NAP is that it's the NAP? Is there any principle you're falling back on to disprove this specific implementation?
: 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.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:11:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 3:05:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:53:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Good as a general principle, but implementing it to its absolute form leads to some absurdities. For example, under the non-aggression principle it would be morally permissible to let your baby starve and die since you don't have a positive duty to protect the baby.

So your objection to the NAP is that it's the NAP? Is there any principle you're falling back on to disprove this specific implementation?

I don't really have a moral system. I suppose I can say I support "utilitarnism" but I think really when it comes down to it all moral systems are really just appeals to emotions.

Yes, I've heard the argument in favor of NAP. I don't see how
(a) Self-automation = Self-ownership. There are self-automated machines that do not own themselves. Furthermore, the whole idea that it is a performative contradiction is itself a performative contradiction since you are arguing for self-ownship, when based on your own criteria you don't own yourself, the state does.
(b) How this justify a system in which natural resources can be obtained. A natural resource has value that is not equivalent to the amount of work put into it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:19:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As a former ancap and libertarian, I always thought that the NAP was a good guiding principle. I understood that, taken to its logical conclusion, it got a bit absurd. But, it still seemed like the best governing principle.

I, of course, no longer adhere to it. I think state aggression can be justified in some cases.
President of DDO
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:26:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is it?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:28:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 3:26:28 PM, OberHerr wrote:
What is it?

Non-agression principle. You have the right to body and property and nobody is allowed to use it for their own means without your consent.

Sound logical, until you realize how the NAP means that a state should not exist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's make believe, fairy tale bs.
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
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:37:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 3:28:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:26:28 PM, OberHerr wrote:
What is it?

Non-agression principle. You have the right to body and property and nobody is allowed to use it for their own means without your consent.

Sound logical, until you realize how the NAP means that a state should not exist.

Not to mention the way it could apply to kids and such.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:46:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:53:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Good as a general principle, but implementing it to its absolute form leads to some absurdities. For example, under the non-aggression principle it would be morally permissible to let your baby starve and die since you don't have a positive duty to protect the baby.

So out of curiosity, what necessitates this positive duty?
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 3:46:33 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:53:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Good as a general principle, but implementing it to its absolute form leads to some absurdities. For example, under the non-aggression principle it would be morally permissible to let your baby starve and die since you don't have a positive duty to protect the baby.

So out of curiosity, what necessitates this positive duty?

In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:08:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.

I hope darkkermit answers too, but anyway, then in your opinion what justifies the State (i.e. presumably elected assigned people by a tyrannical majority) to take oppressive and aggressive actions against the general public?
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:11:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:08:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.

I hope darkkermit answers too, but anyway, then in your opinion what justifies the State (i.e. presumably elected assigned people by a tyrannical majority) to take oppressive and aggressive actions against the general public?

It's implied that dk's answer is utilitarianism, although he clearly specified his thoughts on ethics. Principle of utility would still provide a justification - or demand, really - of that positive duty.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:17:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ OP
If a person does not have faith in God, then she has no concept of absolute morality. NAP is just one of the many imitations in the market...
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:18:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:11:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:10:15 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Danielle, what kind of anarchist are you nowadays?

Anarcho-lesbian

And thats the best kind.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:23:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:08:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.

I hope darkkermit answers too, but anyway, then in your opinion what justifies the State (i.e. presumably elected assigned people by a tyrannical majority) to take oppressive and aggressive actions against the general public?

A foreign threat would be a classic example. The state, by nature, must fund defense against a foreign threat by oppressive manners that violate the NAP.

Outside of that, I think that the state should follow the NAP as a guideline. Obviously, the state, by existing, violates the NAP. That is why I don't take the NAP to its logical, and somewhat absurd, extreme.

I oppose the welfare state's existence and virtually all regulation.

In summary, I think the NAP should be a guideline, but not requirement, for domestic policy but not foreign policy.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:35:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I oppose the welfare state's existence and virtually all regulation.

I'm aware that there are probably some burdensome regulations, but would be against something like limiting the amount of lead that can go into paint or restaurant health measures?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:43:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:10:15 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Danielle, what kind of anarchist are you nowadays?

Leftist... probably most aligned with anarcho-syndicalist...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:45:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:11:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's implied that dk's answer is utilitarianism, although he clearly specified his thoughts on ethics. Principle of utility would still provide a justification - or demand, really - of that positive duty.

Well than how can he say the NAP is objectively wrong if morality is subjective? Anyway, you could always argue that it is in a utalitarian's interest to uphold the NAP.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:45:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:11:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:10:15 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Danielle, what kind of anarchist are you nowadays?

Anarcho-lesbian

http://www.infoshop.org...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:55:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:23:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:08:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.

I hope darkkermit answers too, but anyway, then in your opinion what justifies the State (i.e. presumably elected assigned people by a tyrannical majority) to take oppressive and aggressive actions against the general public?


A foreign threat would be a classic example. The state, by nature, must fund defense against a foreign threat by oppressive manners that violate the NAP.

Outside of that, I think that the state should follow the NAP as a guideline. Obviously, the state, by existing, violates the NAP. That is why I don't take the NAP to its logical, and somewhat absurd, extreme.

I oppose the welfare state's existence and virtually all regulation.

In summary, I think the NAP should be a guideline, but not requirement, for domestic policy but not foreign policy.

None of this really makes any sense or directly answers the question. When referring to the State, people act as if it's some entity like a geographical location or supreme authority. That's why in my post I specified that the "State" merely refers to regular people like you and myself, so essentially the question is about what justifies giving regular people the power to use permissible force and oppression on others without their consent.

You've said that an example is a foreign threat. So okay let's say you work for the "government" i.e. you steal people's money and force them to pay for your services whether they want them or not, whether you're effective or not, etc. Now suppose some people in France want to bomb my property for whatever reason. You're saying that this threat justifies you having control and authority over me. How so? Wouldn't defending my property from the French bombers be my responsibility or priority? I fail to see how foreign threats would justify your control over me.

Obviously your stance on the NAP is hypocritical. You oppose the welfare state presumably because you think it's immoral to force people to pay for others' livelihoods i.e. health care, housing, etc. Yet then you sit there and say it's morally permissible to force people to pay for others' security (i.e. government defense). And no, not everybody gets the same amount of protection and defense. Also even without the welfare state, the state is still a problem insofar as shoddy or corrupt law enforcement, the flawed prison system, etc.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:56:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:45:08 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:11:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's implied that dk's answer is utilitarianism, although he clearly specified his thoughts on ethics. Principle of utility would still provide a justification - or demand, really - of that positive duty.

Well than how can he say the NAP is objectively wrong if morality is subjective? Anyway, you could always argue that it is in a utalitarian's interest to uphold the NAP.

I can't claim to represent dk's thoughts on the objectivity of morality. I don't know them.

NAP would undoubtedly conflict with utility calculations when it comes into practice. It would have to be watered down if you wanted to fit it into a consequentialist framework.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 5:01:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:56:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I can't claim to represent dk's thoughts on the objectivity of morality. I don't know them.

He said, "I don't really have a moral system. I suppose I can say I support utilitarnism but I think really when it comes down to it all moral systems are really just appeals to emotions." This would imply he believes in subjective morality. Ignoring the whether or not utalitarianism has merit (since any moral standard can be argued), I'm asking why the NAP wouldn't be useful even using utalitarian standards. In other words I'm suggesting it can be argued that it would be in a utalitarian's interest to uphold the NAP anyway. If we look at the core of utilitarianism, it would be described fundamentally as an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness." Couldn't it be argued that the NAP maximizes happiness if it could be proven that the State was inherently oppressive/ immoral/ inefficient? Just a fleeting thought; I haven't contemplated this much yet...
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 5:10:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 5:01:46 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:56:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I can't claim to represent dk's thoughts on the objectivity of morality. I don't know them.

He said, "I don't really have a moral system. I suppose I can say I support utilitarnism but I think really when it comes down to it all moral systems are really just appeals to emotions." This would imply he believes in subjective morality. Ignoring the whether or not utalitarianism has merit (since any moral standard can be argued), I'm asking why the NAP wouldn't be useful even using utalitarian standards. In other words I'm suggesting it can be argued that it would be in a utalitarian's interest to uphold the NAP anyway. If we look at the core of utilitarianism, it would be described fundamentally as an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness." Couldn't it be argued that the NAP maximizes happiness if it could be proven that the State was inherently oppressive/ immoral/ inefficient? Just a fleeting thought; I haven't contemplated this much yet...

If the state is inherently negative utility then the case for the NAP is bolstered. However, just returning to our starving baby example it's clear that utilitarianism demands positive obligations. There would seem to be a direct conflict though, like in the famous trolley example where the utilitarian demands that we consciously choose to kill one rather than passively kill 5. A major stumbling block would seem to be the distinction between active and passive murder which the utilitarian generally views as a difference that's morally negligible.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 5:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:55:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:23:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:08:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.

I hope darkkermit answers too, but anyway, then in your opinion what justifies the State (i.e. presumably elected assigned people by a tyrannical majority) to take oppressive and aggressive actions against the general public?


A foreign threat would be a classic example. The state, by nature, must fund defense against a foreign threat by oppressive manners that violate the NAP.


Outside of that, I think that the state should follow the NAP as a guideline. Obviously, the state, by existing, violates the NAP. That is why I don't take the NAP to its logical, and somewhat absurd, extreme.

I oppose the welfare state's existence and virtually all regulation.

In summary, I think the NAP should be a guideline, but not requirement, for domestic policy but not foreign policy.

None of this really makes any sense or directly answers the question. When referring to the State, people act as if it's some entity like a geographical location or supreme authority. That's why in my post I specified that the "State" merely refers to regular people like you and myself, so essentially the question is about what justifies giving regular people the power to use permissible force and oppression on others without their consent.

A state is an institution. Agression will happen with or without this state.


You've said that an example is a foreign threat. So okay let's say you work for the "government" i.e. you steal people's money and force them to pay for your services whether they want them or not, whether you're effective or not, etc. Now suppose some people in France want to bomb my property for whatever reason. You're saying that this threat justifies you having control and authority over me. How so? Wouldn't defending my property from the French bombers be my responsibility or priority? I fail to see how foreign threats would justify your control over me.

I don't need think you understand what a state is. A state is a firm we, as a collective, pay to provide certain services. We also pay them for their judgement. The services I think the state should provide only involve things that require everyone to pay in, like the military.


Obviously your stance on the NAP is hypocritical. You oppose the welfare state presumably because you think it's immoral to force people to pay for others' livelihoods i.e. health care, housing, etc. Yet then you sit there and say it's morally permissible to force people to pay for others' security (i.e. government defense). And no, not everybody gets the same amount of protection and defense. Also even without the welfare state, the state is still a problem insofar as shoddy or corrupt law enforcement, the flawed prison system, etc.

Don't presume anything. I don't have any moral problem with the welfare state. I, do, however have many practical problems with it.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 10:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:08:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:49:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. I don't anything necessarily requires positive action. That is not to say that I do not think people should take positive action in some situations. But, that is their personal choice.

I hope darkkermit answers too, but anyway, then in your opinion what justifies the State (i.e. presumably elected assigned people by a tyrannical majority) to take oppressive and aggressive actions against the general public?

Well what justifies self-ownership? If violation of "property right" leads to the greater good then I believe it is justified.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 10:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:56:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:45:08 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/23/2012 4:11:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's implied that dk's answer is utilitarianism, although he clearly specified his thoughts on ethics. Principle of utility would still provide a justification - or demand, really - of that positive duty.

Well than how can he say the NAP is objectively wrong if morality is subjective? Anyway, you could always argue that it is in a utalitarian's interest to uphold the NAP.

I can't claim to represent dk's thoughts on the objectivity of morality. I don't know them.

NAP would undoubtedly conflict with utility calculations when it comes into practice. It would have to be watered down if you wanted to fit it into a consequentialist framework.

Yes, as a general rule of thumb, I would say that NAP is utilitarianism. However, like I said, letting a baby die, while not conflicting with the NAP, is not utilitarian.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...