Ben Doolin

Both of these individuals believed in the right to self ownership. One declared a right based on 'Right of Dominion'. The other declared that 'rights' are what you can successfully defend... and that he was 'better prepared' than average... to defend his right to self and property. Still... my point was that for a voluntary society to 'work'... the majority must accept the natural right to self ownership and the ownership of property. I prefer to use the NAP to do this as it's generally accepted already... and the right to self ownership and the ownership of property are legitimate extrapolations from the NAP as is their defense. My suggestion for anyone that is going to discuss the concepts of a voluntary society with someone unfamiliar... is that if you're going to discuss the NAP, it should be from the perspective of reinforcing the right to self ownership, property and defense. If not... the alternative should be your justification for those things... as those are what will matter.

Back to my extrapolation... that being the right to self, property and defense... when the majority believe this is correct... and I think a majority do now (just with the exception for 'the state')... then it doesn't matter about what the subjectivists think... they will get shot... and should the issue come before dispute resolution in this scenrio... the shooting will be seen as just (because the majority have supported the free market dispute resolution providers... that respect the NAP in this way). That is why correct extrapolation matters.

Both believe in the NAP... but both take it to be a personal 'value' that can be disregarded.

The individual I was having this discussion with is a very well educated, intelligent, reluctant Voluntaryist. He runs a few Yahoo chat groups, one dedicated to VS. He does believe in the NAP as I extrapolate it (right to self, property and their defense) but he rejects that those are legitimately derived from the NAP. He described those rights as 'the Right of Dominion'... something I'd not heard of previously. This became problematic with another chat group member that ended up more of a nihilist... suggesting that the only rights you have are what you can violently defend and that he is free to do anything to anyone that cannot defend themselves as he rejects 'other people's morality'... which is what he assumes the NAP to be. Because of this position that he holds because of that extrapolation of the NAP, he is convinced that a Voluntary Society is impossible. For Voluntary Society to work... recognition of the right to life and property must be 'generally accepted' (by the majority) with no exception for the state. The NAP, correctly extrapolated... describes this. But again... if extrapolated as a personal value that can be discarded by others... should never even be brought up.

I agree with what I think your question proposes... which is why is either extrapolation incorrect? Neither are logically incorrect. To take away from the NAP that "I should not violate others" I see as completely valid extrapolation. The problem comes in... when the NAP is presented as 'foundational to VS'... and is optional (a personal value). When the extrapolation from the NAP is presented from the perspective of allowing self defense... and defense of property... then being foundational correctly applies... and is relevant to social order. If a person is going to present the NAP as an optional personal value... it probably shoulnd't even be mentioned... the same way that 'I like blue' does not apply to social order.

This is the exact sort of 'confusion' I was referring to. When the NAP is taken to mean a personal value... that some people will apply... it becomes irrelevant. It leads to -- "Some people will, some people will not... and if that's the foundation of your VS then it won't work." When the 'take away' from the NAP is that 'since it's immoral for people to initiate the use of force against me, then I have the right to self, property and defense. Anyone violating me or my stuff... will suffer the consequence. When that is the perspective... it applies to everyone, everywhere... all the time. There is no confusion, no abmibuity and VS is not rejected for being 'unworkable'.

The focus really was the meaning of the NAP. He did agree with self ownership and the right to self defense... but his extrapolation from the NAP was simply a 'personal nicety'. Since the NAP (as I extrapolate it) is the foundation of a voluntary society... referencing right to self ownership, property and self defense... this perspective was very problematic. It was enlightening though, in that it explained the point of view I've hit so many times before. 'The initiation of the use of force is wrong'... extrapolated to simply 'be nice' is a major problem. It is a legitimate extrapolation... (not logically incorrect) but that point of view creates serious problems with those that take that position. The implication is 'there are bad people that will not follow, therefor VS is invalid'. So, this individual did believe in the things that I get out of the NAP... but used other... more convoluted justifications... and still referenced the NAP in discussions about VS... which I know have soured people to VS.

I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance a couple days ago about the NAP. His position was that the NAP was a 'nice to have' for the Voluntary Society... but not foundational. I completely objected suggesting that the NAP... is... the thing that needs to be generally accepted (with no exclusion for the state) for a Voluntary Society to exist... that the NAP... is THE foundation. After LOTS of round and round what we came down to was that we both accepted the common usage of the NAP to mean that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. We each extrapolated from that VERY different things. Morality being broken into two categories 'Morality' (as commonly used) the set of values one holds for one's self and may value in others... and Enforceable Ethical rules... those actions which would be subject to another's legitimate right of defense of self of property. His extrapolation from the NAP was that since the initiation of the use of force is immoral... 'I should not aggress against others' (a moral rule). My extrapolation from the NAP is that since it is immoral for another to aggress against me or my property... self ownership and ownership of property is valid... and I have the legitimate right to defend both (an ethical rule). The resolution of this discussion was me asking how he described my 'ethical description'. He responded with the concept of 'Right Of Domain' (something I'd never heard of before). Effectively the equivalent of my extrapolation of the NAP. My final comment was... that if you extrapolate a moral rule 'I should not violate others'... then you should never even bring up the NAP. People will object to their obligation to follow other's morality... will point out that there are 'bad people' that won't even if they do... and the result is a complete rejection of the Voluntary Society for seeing the NAP as foundational... and... something that won't work. I suggested that he never bring up the NAP, instead to suggest that the ROD is the foundation of a Voluntary Society... although... that didn't seem like a good plan to me... since the NAP is likely brought up in every 'first conversation' on the idea of the Voluntary Society... I'd never even heard of the ROD... AND... correctly extrapolated... the ROD IS the NAP.