Chaoticoli Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle Was anyone else disgusted with this?
masonman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I hope somebody puts up a good rebuttal to this, some of these questions I don't even have fully fleshed out
Existing Alternatives Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Disgusted? No. Concerned for that man’s sense of logic? Yes! He kind of lost me with the whole premise that libertarians can “usually say” things, which implies both groupthink and general inconsistence (all libertarians usually say the same thing; and usually they say one thing, but sometimes another). His examples are mind-blowing though – I had to read each of them more than once, just to grasp his meaning… This whole thing reminds me of the old podcast Stef did about orthodox jews attacking the conservative ones (or was it the other way around?). I’m assuming this guy is a Libertarian, because only a Libertarian will invest so much effort to put down another Libertarian. The question is why? So, you don’t think that non-aggression should be absolute, great, just don’t come to my house with a gun to demand for me to feed those starving children with your “tiny tax” argument…
Dave Bockman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 He erroneously defines the NAP in the 1st paragraph, thus all that follows is also erroneous.
Chaoticoli Posted April 8, 2013 Author Posted April 8, 2013 What is the least erroneous way of defining the NAP?
Dave Bockman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 He left out the initiation of force, not just 'the use of force'. I have always labored under the impression that the definition of the NAP is, 'The initiation of the use of force, or the threat of initiation of the use of force, is immoral'. I'm probably not as up on Big L libertarianism as I should be, so perhaps my definition is incorrect.
Existing Alternatives Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 He left out the initiation of force, not just 'the use of force'. I have always labored under the impression that the definition of the NAP is, 'The initiation of the use of force, or the threat of initiation of the use of force, is immoral'. Can you clarify how “initiation” is different from “use”? And how would that change the author’s point? Sorry, but I’m a bit confused - they both seem the same to me.
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 He left out the initiation of force, not just 'the use of force'. I have always labored under the impression that the definition of the NAP is, 'The initiation of the use of force, or the threat of initiation of the use of force, is immoral'. Can you clarify how “initiation” is different from “use”? And how would that change the author’s point? Sorry, but I’m a bit confused - they both seem the same to me. If the NAP proscribes the use of force, it proscribes self defence. If I use force to defend myself from attack, I have not initiated its use, the attacker has. In the case of Rothbard's hypothetical starved child... if I have knowledge that a child is locked in a house being starved, I am no longer a moral actor when I forcibly enter the other person's property in order to remove the child to safety. In simple terms, I've used force but I've not initiated it.
Steinhauser Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Okay, here's my attempt. 1. Prohibits all pollution In a practical sense, pollution only constitutes initiation of force to the extent that it measurably inhibits another person on his own property. (Thanks to Andrew and Magnus for clarifying this point for me in another thread.) A person cannot reasonably claim to be transgressed against, or demand restitution for that transgression, unless the effects of the pollution are readily apparent, and it interferes with his making full use of that property. Driving a gas guzzler to work will not in itself make a difference to anyone's ability to breathe air on his own property, so could not be considered a real-world transgression against anyone. "Microtransgressions"/technicalities are generally victimless crimes, a throwback to the inflexible, precedent-based court justice system. They have no place in a society built on reason and industry. (Litigating such things would be financially untenable anyway.) Is pollution still a problem? Of course. But while we're on the road to cleaner technologies (the real solution to pollution, which only industry can provide) there's no abject "sin" in polluting a little. And hey, if anyone feels guilty about it, some company out there will gladly let you pay them to atone for it. 2. Prohibits small harms for large benefits If life-saving vaccines can be provided by taxing billionaires, they can also be provided through nonviolent means. Violence also begets more violence - the infrastructure required to enforce vaccine-providing taxation today doesn't take much manipulation to enforce overseas-war-funding taxation tomorrow. Next! 3. All-or-nothing attitude toward risk Intent, not outcome. If you're pointing a six-shooter with one bullet at my head, you have the intent to cause me harm, and are violating the principle. If you point a six-shooter with six bullets at an oncoming bear, and manage to shoot me standing behind the bear, you did not intend to cause me harm and thus did not violate the principle. Next! 4. Fraud Caveat emptor. All voluntary transactions carry the risk of fraud, and there is no fundamental human right to reward without risk. 5. Parasitic on a theory of property rights Property rights are just an intrinsic part of the NAP. If the initiation of force was always acceptable, property could not exist (beyond one's ability to defend it with force). If the initiation of force was acceptable some of the time, it stands to reason that in the cases it is acceptable, you don't have full ownership of whatever property is being aggressed against (be it your person, or possessions). I haven't studied property rights, so someone else can expand on this if they want. 6. What about the children?? The decision to become a parent includes the responsibility to care for the child until able to fend for itself. Parenthood is, in effect, a one-sided contract. (One-sided because, having had no say in its own birth, the child has no responsibilities to the parent.) Creating a person without the ability to fend for itself, then leaving that person to fend for itself or die, is a breach of contract on the same level as agreeing to care for an invalid, then denying him care. (Actually more egregious, since the child was not able to consent to the agreement.)
Existing Alternatives Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 If the NAP proscribes the use of force, it proscribes self defence. If I use force to defend myself from attack, I have not initiated its use, the attacker has. In the case of Rothbard's hypothetical starved child... if I have knowledge that a child is locked in a house being starved, I am no longer a moral actor when I forcibly enter the other person's property in order to remove the child to safety. In simple terms, I've used force but I've not initiated it. Makes sense now! Thanks!
Recommended Posts