NickH

Thank you for the response! Granted in its entirety! Thanks for the clarification, as I didn't intend to imply that NAP is dependent on Stef's existence or change the definition of self-defense. Also, I am currently moving through Stef's intro to philosophy playlist, though it is quite lengthy so I'll be at it awhile. However, here is where I get hung up: We accept that it is ethical for a person to use force to secure promises made to them. This is perfectly reasonable and I agree completely. We also accept that a group of people has the same ethical rights and responsibilities as any member of the group; just because there is a group of people that come together, does not mean that simply by being call a "society" the group loses any rights or gains any privileges that any of its individuals have or do not have. Thus it is ethical for a group of people to use force to secure promises made to members of the group or made to everyone in the group. For a person to be a member of a group, that person will usually have to make some sort of promise to the rest of the group members regarding their behavior. This promise can be explicit (as in an employment contract or an oath of citizenship) or implicit (few group members explicitly affirm their allegiance to each and every law and social custom of a group, especially those members born into a group). Also, for reasons of practicality and especially in large groups, a group member who makes this promise is assumed to have made this promise to all members, regardless if they are present or not. Thus it appears to be ethical for a group of people to use force to secure the explicit or implicit promises made by its members to each other. In large groups, members will find it practical to devise some way of appointing leaders. These leaders will be able to make decisions for the group's members as limited by the rules of the group (we usually call these rules a constitution). These leaders are usually also empowered by those rules to use force to secure promises, implicit or explicit, made to members of the group. So here comes the big question: Given that all of the above naturally flows from "it is ethical for a person to use force to secure promises made to them," is it not also ethical for a government to use force upon its own citizens to secure its laws, provided that force is provided for by its constitution?

Hello everyone. I've been watching Stephan's videos on Youtube for a while now and just finished his video on reality where he laid out his non-aggression policy (NAP). I particularly like it since it is a very simple idea that can be very easily described, but I do have an issue with its interpretation, which I thought I'd run by the community here rather than trying to pester the call in show about it. As a disclaimer, I am very mindful of Stephan's speech on nitpickers and wish to strongly declare that I do not intend to con anyone into shooting ping pong balls or performing endless stretching with this post. This question deals with the fundamental interpretation of the foundation of Stephan's philosophy, and how you or I answer this scenario greatly affects what form our worldview takes if we are consistent with it. NAP as stated on the video: The initiation of force by one person upon another is wrong, unless in self-defense. Simple scenario: Two people (call them Alice and Bob) come to an arrangement where they agree to exchange two things of value (this can be anything from labor, to food, to money or whatever). Alice delivers her good (or pays her money or performs her labor or whatever) to Bob, but Bob, having received Alice's valuables decides not to give Alice what he promised. Alice may find herself in varying degrees of distress depending on how badly she needed the goods Bob offered her, but for the purposes of this scenario and for the sake of simplicity we will just say that Alice is meaningfully hurt or disadvantaged by Bob reneging on his promise. Under NAP, is Alice justified in resorting to force to extract the goods promised to her from Bob? Or, in other words, is Bob reneging on his promise and thus hurting Alice sufficient in concept for Alice to respond with force in self-defense to claim what was promised to her? What do you think?