powder

compensation or recompense is appropriate in many cases where ignorance or negligence causes damage or disruption to you or your property, this does not mean it is a violation of the NAP or immoral and you can take aggressive defensive action. If someone bumps into your car and causes damage to you and/or you property (vehicle) you are entitled to compensation but you can't beat them up unless their intent was to take you out.

@dsayers, not too familiar with the whole down-voting thing but I just clicked on one of the down-vote tabs on one of your threads by accident - sorry dude. Don't know how to retract it but be assured I have given you many up-votes since I started here. still interested to learn why someone would disagree with your position. any takers?

Phuein, no, they are not in the definition of the NAP. I am waiting for you to make a clear definition if you do not accept the ones that josh and dsayers just provided. This phrase which claims that universal principles can be non-universal - "There is no fault in having a universal axiom that is reliant on social (non-universal) terminology, in my view." What are you arguing for really? Seems like you want to universalize stuff because of stuff that has upset you. If you do not accept the definition then give us an example of verbal abuse where you think it is justified to use violence or aggression to defend yourself.

I am curious to know the reasons why dsayers is being down voted. I don't think his question, "is it immoral to deceive someone for the sake of personal gain" has not been addressed, or have I missed something?... again. Are people saying that this is immoral in the same way as theft? I think taking responsibility for your choices, like relying on a pawn broker to offer you the real value of an item, and the value of a good reputation systems, like ebay, are antidotes to being duped by unscrupulous people, but is that kind of fraud a violation of the NAP?

OK, I get, you are not confused, I am. Sorry, my bad, I misread and somehow thought that you disagreed with tyler's or Jame's example or that you thought it was somehow in the same category as the pawn broker example. You are talking about something else here and I don't think most people are on to it. Are you asking "is it immoral to take advantage of another person's ignorance?" If so it is a good question. probably no, I would think. Nasty enough that it would, and should, hurt your reputation as an person of integrity and you would probably lose a lot of business if you did it enough. If I know that this model is going to be discontinued and will go on sale for 1/3 of the price next week and sell it to you at full price because you haven't done your homework... Is this the kind of thing you are talking about? this is a little different from the pawn broker example but along the same lines in that the person is taking advantage of the uninformed position of the other. In the case of the pawn broker it is even more obvious that if the seller wanted to know the value of the item they should know that it is better to ask an expert in the field rather than trust a pawn broker.

I don't know Phuein, doesn't the value of ethics, and the NAP lie in their universality? The definition Robert just gave is simple and easy to apply universally. If each society, or individuals, can ascribe their own definitions based on cultural or religious ideologies or personal perspectives, then all kinds of horrible deeds could also be justified if they don't fall into the category of 'aggression' but rather 'tradition' or 'honor' etc (like killing women for not being virgins). Likewise, aggressive action could be deemed reasonable for non-violent verbal insults or criticisms. Heck, that is already what is going on in the world and that is why we need universal ethics and the NAP. Why not just leave these verbal insults and assaults, as ambiguous as they may be depending on circumstance, out of the realm of the NAP and universal ethical definition; defamation, slander, whatever, and deal with them on a case by case basis? I think people are pretty good at judging what are appropriate responses to the various forms these may take.

in tyler's Unicef example above, how is that different from stealing? property has been taken without informed consent.

sorry to hear you had to endure that stuff Phuein, good for you for saying no to that violence and coercion, I would have done the same.

Isn't fraud stealing, taking someone's property using deception, in the way the James describes above, and isn't stealing immoral, a violation of the NAP?

If it did not support the agenda of the ruling class it would not be offered as an option. The rulers are never interested in smaller and less when it comes to power and control, governments don't want to shrink anymore than cancer does. The EU is the next step upward for the Scots if they want to be 'free' of England, it is not a step towards minarchism and more freedom. Besides, why choose to have less cancer when you can choose to be healthy and rid of the scourge.

I am not sure what you are trying to say I guess but this is the sentence that caught my attention, and it seems clear to me. Is it not saying that if the abuser is not warned of his abuses they may not be a violation of the NAP? The causes of mental abuse, esp for early childhood, are clearly defined. Perhaps the effects of that abuse are harder to identify is what you are trying to say?

Why does it matter what you or anyone else believes? You own yourself, you own the affects of your actions. This is not a Western notion or cultural opinion, it is philosophy, it is a universal truth. Other 'cultural' definitions of property ownership, whether they are accepted by the general population or not, would then be a violation of the NAP, which itself is universal.

You are saying that it is only a violation of the NAP if you are aware of the principle? It is not abuse or aggression to hit your kid unless someone explains the NAP to you?

Good points jp, and I agree with your perspective, I just don't see it as a moral issue. In general I would not have a problem with someone slugging a loud mouth 'aggressive' jerk whose intent is the antagonize.

I think Josh put it very well, I do not see a grey area either. I do not agree with this definition of the NAP, it does define evil, it is implicit in the wording - Non Aggression Principle. You go straight from talking about evil to the example of a dude calling you an idiot. I too would be more inclined to focus on your personal history with bullies and verbal abusers. I understand the free society reference but I am referring to your claim that the hate speech is a violation of the NAP, I do not agree with that.

Yup, what FreedomNoFilters says. To be clear, I argue that insults and defamation of character are not a violation of the NAP but threats of physical harm can certainly be. If someone verbally threatens to kill me or harm me it is morally justifiable for me to take appropriate defensive action. An insult is not the same as a threat from a moral perspective. I don't really know what self defense would entail when someone calls you a moron. Also, I think it must be made clear that we a talking about adult volunteer relationships. Verbal abuse against children is not the same. what would that 'appropriate' response look like, and who gets to establish that standard? Like FNF says above, just because it is evil and stupid, that does not mean it violates the NAP.

thanks for posting this Kevin, I am going to give them a listen while I sit and paint next week. this is the kind of stuff that I think Stef does so well.

stuff like this makes it clear how important it is to define terms before entering into a debate. wow.

First, you do understand that I am not talking about slavery, right? That said,... depends on how you see what? who is being forced to obey who in a voluntary relationship?

Kristoffero, I will say up front that I have not read the article and based on what I have read in this thread I do not intend to. You can let me know if I am missing something important but those are a lot of words there that don't amount to much as far as I can tell. Phrases like: "the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for the formerly anarchic system to magically transform into government" are meaningless to me. I understand the kind of compulsion that wants to understand and predict every detail about what it will look like when slavery is ended,... but it is not helpful, you just have to do the right thing and let good people do what they will. You just have to stop initiating force and let the flow of human compassion, empathy, ingenuity and cooperation take over and evolve into whatever form it takes. Whyshould anyone care about these semantic and rhetorical questions? As long as people and companies are not violating the NAP and respecting property rights then who cares how big they are? If they are making their customers happy, no problem. If they stop doing that and start violating people's rights, then in a free market society the competition will step up and take over market share. Simple. Will that happen gradually or overnight and require us to change our definitions? Maybe, but who cares? These are just words, anarchy is about universal ethical behavior.

labmath, you either didn't read, or didn't understand what I wrote. I did answer both questions. I didn't say I want to live where the rule is the NAP, I said I already do, and so do all good and rational people. To think that we need to make an moral exception for a ruling class is madness. If you understand what the NAP is then you understand that you don't need to 'enforce' it, you only need to defend against people who violate it. Set what boundaries? in what way is the NAP flexible? You clearly have different ideas about what the NAP is and what constitutes property rights. Every ethical and rational person abides by the simple rules of the NAP and property rights. labmath, you need to respond to this Dev's post, and answer my question about how the NAP is 'flexible' before I can continue with this conversation...

I don't have an idea of a society that I would like to live in as if it is some sort of fantasy land where everyone gets along peacefully and wears flowers in their hair - I already live my life everyday in a voluntary, non-aggressive way. So do you I hope. I don't use force to get money and food and have my wants and desires met, I don't use force to impose my ideas or opinions on people who disagree with me. It is called the NAP. I don't determine how to make the rules, why would anyone listen to me, or any person of group of people? That is the point, the appeal to, and delegation of authority (the right to control others with force) to a ruling class is the most dangerous thing the world has ever come up with. I negotiate and cooperate with people who disagree with me in my personal life, I don't use force. All sane and rational people agree with the NAP, as long as no-one uses force, it does not matter what type of system you set up to get things done in society, but if you adhere to the NAP, it is no longer governance.

well said Dev, and besides those 2 options are not very appealing or helpful to anyone who understands volunteerism. It is like telling a slave he can go work for another master or try to make things better with the current slave master, as long as he still does what he is told.

democracy is just a nice way of saying 'Mod Rules' or the tyranny of the majority - it is unethical. I don't care how people choose to organize society as long as participation or non-participation is voluntary and no one violates the NAP - which is what government does.