STer

Very interesting if that's true about Rothbard's view on this. I wonder if Libertarians and Anarchists take that view seriously or kind of just ignore it. As you say, this issue would have huge implications with the US and Native Americans for example, with many well-documented examples of broken treaties and so on that could probably be shown. I think, at least for philosophical consistency, this issue can't be totally ignored.

I'm not sure I'd put it that way. I'm just saying that some preferences have more far-reaching implications than others. And preferences about the very nature of preferences and how different people's preferences should interact have more implications than others. So they should be given extra attention and other preferences should be seen in light of those meta-preferences. The dictionary defines malice as: "desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness" Do you deny there are people who have such desire? If so, calling them malicious is simply an accurate assessment. If someone says correctly that another person has malice and you tell them they shouldn't say that because it's moralistic, it seems to me you're simply refusing to accept reality or an expression of it. Like I said before, you have to separate two topics here. There is the assessment and then just practical communication strategy. I mean even when dealing with a clinical psychopath it may not serve you to let on that you know what they are. You may be better off communicating in some more strategic way. But what I'm talking about here is the assessment itself. If a person is malicious I think it's worth accurately assessing them as malicious. Then you can decide if you should call them malicious to their face or not, which may or may not be useful or wise.

I understand that this is Marshall Rosenberg's explanation for any destructive behavior. But I'm not sure it holds water. There are sadistic people who commit acts that inflict suffering on others where I think you'd have a hard time finding any alternative need that they are trying to meet but failing to meet. Maslow sometimes talked about an "aesthetic need" and used the experience of having to straighten a crooked painting as an example. I think for some sadistic people the suffering of others meets some kind of aesthetic need for them. Make no mistake, there are many - if not most - people who do harm because they are indeed using faulty strategies to meet needs and thus failing to meet those needs. But if you look at the case of a psychopath, for example, they are often quite satisfied by their actions and do not find their needs being unmet. Rather, they find their needs indeed met by their destructive actions. They are only frustrated when others try to stop them from satisfying themselves. I think the NVC crowd - in which I find a great deal of value - have not sufficiently contended with cases of these sorts and their implications.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying - you would simply conclude that it is not this persons preference to respect your preferences, or even work out a consistent set of principles on whose preferences come first and therefore your preference is to dissassociate. There's no moral implication but the results are the same. Yes you can frame it that way. I'm mostly pointing out that this preference is a meta-preference which makes it more important than other preferences. It determines the entire framework in which the interaction takes place and all of the other preferences play out. Can I just make this perfectly clear again -No One is arguing for non-jugdement - value judgments are inherent in the human condition - all that is really being said is ascribing a moral tone to those judgments you are adding something which does not inhere in them that you could probably do without. For the rest of your point is really redundant in that light, no one is "teaching the child not to judge" they are actually teaching the child to self-empathise and connect with their feelings, preferences and needs rather than focusing on the other person and their story about what their qualities are. With that sense of self-empathy the child can just as easily, perhaps even more easily, choose associations. I understand this desire to take morality out of it. But as I've pointed out, you can argue it's subjective to call someone "bad" but it isn't subjective to call them "malicious." So if we assess that another person is malicious, should we refrain from accepting that assessment? Is determining that someone is malicious a moral judgment or not?

Very important comment. It reminds me of one of Stef's podcasts where he talked about his daughter having a bad reaction to another kid and where many parents would have shamed her for "not being nice" and told her to play with this other child, Stef validated her response and respected her desire not to be around him. And to add to what you've said here, I think when you keep suppressing a child's reactions to people in this way, it really disturbs the entire development of their sense of self.

Alright, great point The cotention is that all behaviour is a manifestation of undelying needs and preferences, and by focussing on behaviour rather than needs we are more susceptible to deemphasising practical solutions in lieu of entering debates on a persons morality (real or perceived) that escalate into non-productive conflicts. By focussing on needs and preferences underlying behaviour we have a greater chance of helping others find ways of meeting those needs in ways that are more socially constructive. Just like the kids in my video who found they got a better quality of companionship from relating well to others than putting their restless impulses before the preferences of others There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited, perhaps, in this paradigm, because it holds that "exploiter is in the eye of the preference-holder" One says "he's being exploitative" the other says "he's following his rational self-interest" the other says "he's being assertive" the other says "he should ask politely" this form only suggests that individuals express themselves in terms of their observations, feelings, ,needs and requests - and the evidence seems to suggest that this is a much better form than labelling "you exploiter" - because it doesn't put people on the defensive and shift people to debating whether the judgement is true or false instead of focusing like a lazer on discovering what all parties needs and preferences are and if they can be met or not You may well use UPB as a measure of who you really want to be friends with and who you don't, but I don't imagine it really is more effective in practical conversation then leaving the moral judgments out and focussing on having our goals met : "win/win or no-deal" The thing that poses a serious challenge to this whole framework is sadism/aggressive dominance in all its varying degrees. These are people that at least believe or perceive a need for others to suffer or be inferior to them. The NVC framework is a great one with those who value win-win solutions. But there is a whole category of people that do not and actually emphatically value win-lose. So I think it's important to know which situation you're dealing with. With someone who values win-win, focus in on the needs and find strategies for mutual benefit. But with those who value win-lose, it's important to be able to recognize that that is the case and that NVC, or at least certain forms of it, are unlikely to be effective.

Glad it helped. I really recommend the original book on IFS linked there. It's a great comprehensive explanation. Stefan kind of uses a broad overview of the system focusing on some parts of it more than others. But there are a lot of specifics in IFS that he doesn't usually mention that are important to understanding the whole approach.

Perhaps this piece will help: Some Clarifications of Stefan Molyneux’s Internal Family Systems “MEcosystem” Approach

I think we're talking about two different issues here - what is the case and what is the most effective way to communicate about it if your goal is to get your needs met. I think what I said is accurate that some people value health and sustainability for themselves, others and the ecosystem, some partially do and others don't at all. Now the question is, given that, if you want to optimize the situation how should you communicate? This also goes back to your values. If you mostly value avoiding conflict, your NVC type approach may be optimal in some situations. If you mostly value expression for its own sake, not for achieving secondary consequences, you might choose differently. Also which approach works best for any goal may depend on which value set the other person holds as well as yourself. I think the important point is to realize that strategizing is going on here and to be conscious of your choices. I don't think any one approach will consistently work in all situations. I am a big fan of NVC on several levels. In many situations it's extremely helpful. And I think it's almost always useful to at least think in NVC terms when trying to make sense of what's going on inside you. But in my writing on NVC I've also put in sections about the difficulties that serious personality disorders pose for the effectiveness of NVC. By definition, if another person doesn't value your feelings or needs, expressing them is not going to be very effective in motivating them to be compassionate with them. So in the end, while I wish there was an easy answer like "Just use NVC and things will always go better" I don't think that's the case. It's more difficult, but I think it is the case that what is important is choosing the most effective approach for each particular situation with each particular person or group depending on what your goal is. And I don't see any way around having to deal with that complexity if you really want to optimize things.

Loveprevails, This is why I try to reframe moral terms into objective terms having to do with values about health and sustainability. We can somewhat effectively use words like "evil" if we define them in certain ways. I usually tell people that when I use that word I mean someone who purposefully and unnecessarily harms others through action or neglect without any corresponding benefit to the others. This may not be a perfect definition but you can see a direction for a useful definition there. But often I'll just refrain from using this very charged word,, "evil," and use the more solid words malice or malicious instead. I think it is very important for people to realize that there is nothing inherent that says what is "good" or "bad" in nature. We are viewing things from the perspective of our own value system. But there are those of us who value healthy and sustainability of ourselves, other people and creatures and the ecosystem as a whole. The are others who value none of this. And there are others that value some of those and not others. These are very real and consequential differences.

The question wasn't whether a child could do it. The question was whether it would be moral to tell a child to do it for the benefit of some audience of other people. Oh, I forgot who I was talking to. Sorry. Well actually you forgot who I was talking to You responded to my response to Morse Code Stutters. My response was to his question about the morality of it when he asked:

I think the moral question here is more difficult. It's one thing for an adult to decide that in a given situation a lie is the more moral choice. But to instruct your children to partake in it adds another level of complexity. Either way I was just pointing out that Nathan's response didn't really address what the person he was responding to had asked.

You could use stand-ins like they do with stings and things sometimes. Adults that are able to pass as kids. Just an idea. Why bother? My daughter is 4. She could throw a perfect tantrum on demand, because she completely understands what it is. She sees them happen with her 22 month-old brother when he gets frustrated about not being able to communicate. She also completely understands the idea of pretending. She takes her Play-dough and pretends to make cupcakes. She takes her dolls and pretends they're having conversations. She watches Dora the Explorer and pretends that Dora can hear her when she answers. There is no confusion on her part. In fact, she tries with sometimes-distressing frequency to pretend to be sad. She knows how to fake crying when she wants something. We're working through that very practice right now, in fact; negotiating away from the use of false distress to trigger a reaction from me and my wife. (If you're wondering whether we did something to cause this practice, the answer is yes: we had another baby. When he cries it generally is real distress and we address it immediately. She's nothing if not observant.) Based on this conversation, I'm tempted right now to try this idea out. My only reservation is whether *I* would deliver an adequate performance and demonstration for people to want to follow. I have no idea whether I'd be successful in my own role. Maybe I'll ask her about it tomorrow. The question wasn't whether a child could do it. The question was whether it would be moral to tell a child to do it for the benefit of some audience of other people.

You could use stand-ins like they do with stings and things sometimes. Adults that are able to pass as kids. Just an idea.

This is actually a pretty brilliant idea. Something like "health-modeling flashmobs." And if it was done well and recorded and thrown on the web, then people all over the world could see it. Even once it was in the open that it was staged, it would really open up deep discussion. But a more useful discussion than usual as specific modeled behaviors would be debated, not vague theories.

I believe that in Alaska every citizen gets a share of the state's oil profits. I'm pretty sure it's just distributed equally but you could look into it. I don't know if that sheds any light on a possible model. Even in a case with a state involved, they just divvy it up equally (I think).

But by that logic if someone can steal something and hand it down to their kids, the kids (and grandkids, etc.) get it scot-free. All they have to do is successfully hold onto the stolen property long enough for it to pass down one generation and they get to keep it in perpetuity. Do you think that's a reasonable policy? Exactly the same issue as with the land. It's just wealth in general, whether currency or land or anything else. If there was coercion used in acquiring it at any time in the past, then these moral questions arise. And the main question I see is "How long do these past wrongs continue to be relevant?" or in other words "What is the statute of limitations?" It still seems to me that's what everything you're asking comes down to. I'd expand that to "Whose resources are they?" Isn't that really where this all stems from? I have seen threads on this forum before questioning how individuals come to believe they have ownership over natural resources. Nobody originally "owned" the earth. So is it not a commons we all started off with a share in? And was that original sharing changed by moral means? If not then why are current ownership claims legitimate? These are really important and fundamental questions. Welcome

No it does not belong to them and there is no justification to initiate force as a remedy. Take it back by using non-aggressive barriers. Even though it does not belng to them, force is not justified as a remedy because force was never initiated by those you take back from. This simple definition eliminates the need for arbitrary time limits. Well this just points out again why the NAP needs definition so badly. As far as I know, many, if not most, people who believe in the NAP do believe that theft - at least in some cases - is considered an initiation of force and the use of force in response may be justified. I'm sure there would be gray areas here. In some cases, I think the theft is serious enough that they would consider self-defense justifiable. In others, perhaps if what is being taken is not very valuable, they wouldn't. The fact that I've been hanging around here for quite some time and still have so much confusion about what people really believe when they talk about the NAP is telling.

DarkSky, My entire approach is based on unsustainability as the main problem. In the same blog post I linked at the start of the thread, where I pointed people to the section on the "statute of limitation" on self-defense, there is another section where I advocate for involving an anarcho-primitivist in the discussion. This is because they are a lot more likely to challenge industrial civilization and that needs to be part of the conversation. Unsustainable growth as a paradigm is the core problem, I believe, as well and I focus on it constantly in my work. Check out Growthbusters by the way. You again mention how many people have already been damaged by the system as it is and that we can't just move on while ignoring that. And once again, that's exactly why I say it isn't enough to just promote the NAP. This is a strange situation where we seem, from the very start, to be in agreement. I came into the thread to back up the importance of what you were raising, not to challenge it. And yet you are responding with a tone as if we are disagreeing. The one thing I take issue with is you calling what I was doing "quibbling." I maintain that the question I was asking is essential and that it is telling that nobody answers it, both in this thread and elsewhere. Nothing you've said has diminished my belief that the definition of what counts as self-defense is one of the single most important questions anarchists and libertarians must answer.

I guess we see things exactly opposite. I was repeating the question to keep the thread on topic. As I saw it, nobody was answering the key question and it was being dodged. As it stands I still haven't had one person answer the question so I keep trying to point out why that question is of utmost importance. And this is a pattern that predates this thread. I think this is a question that is crucial to this entire philosophy that remains unaddressed over and over. Repeating a question can not be "thread-stomping" but "thread-focusing" as long as it is a relevant question. And this is where your response surprises me. I thought I was focusing quite precisely on what your OP was about. Your OP said that a problem is that while we can try to act fairly going forward, we still have to ask how past injustices get corrected. You proposed one idea - redistributing everything to start from scratch to undo past unfairness and make things start from a fair point going forward. I posted in support of your question, pointing out that your question does in fact boil down to a question about defense of property. Isn't the reason you are suggesting we should "start from scratch" because you are saying current distribution has involved people acquiring land unjustly, which means there are people who have a claim that someone has property that really belongs to them? The only thing in question here is why you think what I'm asking is not the core question involved in your OP. It certainly seems to be to me. The only reason you could justify redistributing land to start from a fairer point is if you think that, in the past, land has been taken unfairly and coercively and that there are therefore people with justifiable grievances. If you think what I'm saying isn't relevant to your OP perhaps you can rephrase your OP very concisely and clearly because I'm still under the impression that what I'm asking and what you're asking are tied right in together.

OP wasn't claming land should always remain divided equally. He simply said that since the land allocation at present is not a result of the free market but all sorts of coercion for millenia, perhaps it would only be fair to start over from scratch with it divided equally and from there let the free market work as it will. And that's why I keep saying the question really has to do with how you deal with past aggression moving forward. Do we just write off thousands of years of violations of the NAP and attempt to start applying it now? Or do some people who are in certain positions as a result of NAP violations have a moral case for righting those wrongs before we start moving forward? If not, why not? If so, then in which cases do past NAP violations have to be resolved and in which not?

I couldn't be more confused. I haven't seen any arguing for the sake of arguing going on. Just a perfectly respectful discussion. I don't know where you're seeing any concern of arguing for the sake of arguing. If something particular stood out or is bothering you please point it out specifically. Otherwise, I think the discussion is going on along just fine and look forward to hearing more thoughts on the subject.

I haven't seen anything attacking so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm also confused as to what you mean by "both sides." I didn't see a "sides" debate going on. I simply have tried to reinforce what you seemed to be asking in the OP which centers around how defense is defined, especially with respect to time passed between property changing hands. I haven't quite seen anyone give a straight answer to it but it isn't really a debate with sides, it's just a necessary part of using the NAP in any meaningful way in discussion or implementation.

I'm sure they do. The question is, are they gonna immediately use force as a defensive solution or are they going to try a non-violent defensive solution first? The free society is all about negotiation. Righting wrongs without resorting to force is a pretty important development on that path. If you think about it, our current theory of after-the-fact retribution-based justice is incompatible with the NAP. Murdering the murderer solves nothing, nor is it NAP compatible. By that same token, forcibly-ejecting people from lands doesn't resolve the underlying dispute. I agree that there may well be an obligation to use force only as a last resort, even when it is justifiable. This still won't get you out of the necessity to define when it is justifiable, though. Well, since the idea of a central authority is antithetical to a free society, we can be sure there won't be any agency which mandates that definition. My guess would be that each person will need to develop close, personal relationships with each other, nearby person. Realistically, I'm thinking that every community is going to have a mildly different understanding of what does and does not constitute force. However, without knowing what the theory of justice will be in such a society, there's no way to tell how that particular problem will be solved. At best, we can be sure that the force/defense problem will be resolved through some kind of peaceful negotiation. This is interesting because ancaps and libertarians speak of the NAP as the basis for a free society. But here you're saying that even that isn't the case because a free society may not agree with the NAP or they may define it differently than others do. And this is really surfacing what I'm getting at. It isn't enough to just talk about the NAP as gospel. This is a much more complicated issue. When I hear people talking about the NAP as this golden rule around which everything else will fall into place, I find it very oversimplified. And you've kind of conceded that here.

You are absolutely correct that no one can know how a free society would work. However, if I can identify how some course of action necessitates the initiation of force, then it stands to reason to conclude such a course is not part of any possible model of a free society. For example, we don't know how children will be instructed, but we do know that force won't be part of that process. If I propose that children will be forced into schooling, then you know I'm not talking about a free society. Now, I believe that there is no model of involuntary property redistribution which does not involve force. It only stands to reason that any free-society-compatible model of property redistribution must be based on voluntary agreements. That is, people may choose not to participate in the redistribution pool. Thus, any property redistribution model which depends of force to attain a just distribution of said property, is incompatible with a free society. You're still missing the heart of the matter. Force is compatible with the NAP as long as it isn't initiation but defense. Many of those urging forceful redistribution of land see it as a defensive use of force, not initiation. There is no getting around the fact that what is and is not defense will have to be very precisely defined. And nobody is even addressing that point around which all of this revolves.