6 reasons libertarians should reject the NAP -- Stefan's rebuttal

[Metric]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwrsKGzcZLM]

I liked the over-arching point Stefan made, that articles like this just have the wrong focus -- people aren't dying because of too little aggression-against-the-innocent in the world.  I also liked the point that it's an unreasonable (at this point) to demand that every possible variable and improbable circumstance be taken into account by a one-line principle.  I didn't so much like the discussion of "implicit contracts" -- that seemed a little like stepping into quicksand.

But anyway, I mainly wanted to point out something else -- I think perhaps Stefan was saying something like this, but it wasn't fully distilled.  None of these improbable scenarios that are used as justifications for violence (attempting to discredit the NAP) actually address the NAP in the way we use it.  Of course we may forgive some guy for violating the NAP in an extreme survival situation, where he must act more like an animal than a moral agent in order to survive.  The circumstance is deliberately constructed such that his choice is to A) violate the NAP or B) die horribly -- instinct kicks in and would win against ANY principle of basic civilization.   What we're saying with the NAP is that aggression-against-the-innocent is immoral as a fundamental working component of any institution.  If it can't work without aggression-against-the-innocent as a working component, something is horribly, horribly wrong with it.  THAT is the core libertarian principle.  And this is the version that was barely addressed by the Zwolinski article (there is some relevance in the case of pollution, but I think something as fundamental as the 2nd law of thermodynamics deserves special treatment -- all human activities including life itself increases the entropy of the universe).

 

[DaVinci]

I think the guy who wrote the article and Stef were making somewhat similar points overall. That we need to get busy actually solving problems rather than talking about theoretical ways we might solve problems. Of course I think the reason behind writing the article was that he wants to point out these exceptions, or supposed contradictions to the NAP so that he can subtly argue for the current statist system as what we should be using to solve problems. Because otherwise why would he argue for us to "reject the NAP" after reading his article if not because he wants us to accept statism as a more feasible solution to our problems? He even compares the NAP to an inaccurate model of observation at the end of the article without any pointing to what he views as a correct model other than the aforementioned subtle statist endorsement that was peppered through the argument. In fact I find it odd to write an entire argument pointing out the contradictions of the NAP while not pointing out the contradictions of a system that does aggress on people. It would be like arguing that a free society is imperfect and that this imperfection implies that we must reject freedom as an inaccurate way of living, Then while arguing this point there is a purposeful omission of the imperfect nature of slavery and how much more egregious it is in comparison to true freedom. Then subtly argue for a less direct form of slavery as being more productive to solving problems. I mean, this whole article stinks of propaganda.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

Somehow the only valid rebuttal to the point was number 4, where pointing out that fraud is actually theft, wich is a breach of contract, and therefore enforceable.

Point number 1 the polution, he starts by admiting that 'hey if I lock someone in the garage and pollute it's a violation of NAP', but stops at that ... when does the 'garage' stops beeing a 'garage'. When it's a city, continent, entire planet ?. Then he starts ranting about benefits of polution for a society, wich makes sense and is logical, but it's entirely off topic ... it was pollution vs NAP, not how will pollution be managed in a free society.

Point number 3 was misunderstood because the author failed to mention the fact that one doesn't see the revolver to his head. Then it was easy to transform it into a bable about how risk is managed into a free society. The topic was not risk management in a free society, but rather risk and NAP.

 

And the rest of the points were 'rebutted' by saying .... YAD (you are a dick), because you think like that. And that would never happen in a free society. Wich looks very much like an ad hominem argumentation. Only mentally deranged person would think like that, therefore NAP is valid ??? I mean wtf kind of argumentation is that ?

 

And biology is not an exact science. In what year do you live ?. That was the case in 1800s. But the more we learn about the DNA, the more accurate it becomes.

[DaVinci]

 

 

Point number 1 the polution, he starts by admiting that 'hey if I lock someone in the garage and pollute it's a violation of NAP', but stops at that ... when does the 'garage' stops beeing a 'garage'. When it's a city, continent, entire planet ?. Then he starts ranting about benefits of polution for a society, wich makes sense and is logical, but it's entirely off topic ... it was pollution vs NAP, not how will pollution be managed in a free society.

 

I think in regards to the NAP we have to look at intent. So if I push you and you smash into a wall, that would violate the NAP. But if I push you and you smash into a wall, but you were about to get hit by a car then I have just saved you. If you are walking down the street and I stab you and run off, that would violate the NAP. If you are walking down the street and I stab you because your appendix was about to burst and I'm a trained doctor, then I have just saved you. So intent is important.

So what about pollution? If I start a camp fire on my property to keep warm and all the smoke blows over to your property and you breathe it in and it makes you pass out then we have to determine my intent. If my intent was to harm you, then I have clearly violated the NAP. But what about if my intent was only to keep warm? Have I violated the NAP?

 

 

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

 

 

Point number 1 the polution, he starts by admiting that 'hey if I lock someone in the garage and pollute it's a violation of NAP', but stops at that ... when does the 'garage' stops beeing a 'garage'. When it's a city, continent, entire planet ?. Then he starts ranting about benefits of polution for a society, wich makes sense and is logical, but it's entirely off topic ... it was pollution vs NAP, not how will pollution be managed in a free society.

 

I think in regards to the NAP we have to look at intent. So if I push you and you smash into a wall, that would violate the NAP. But if I push you and you smash into a wall, but you were about to get hit by a car then I have just saved you. If you are walking down the street and I stab you and run off, that would violate the NAP. If you are walking down the street and I stab you because your appendix was about to burst and I'm a trained doctor, then I have just saved you. So intent is important.

So what about pollution? If I start a camp fire on my property to keep warm and all the smoke blows over to your property and you breathe it in and it makes you pass out then we have to determine my intent. If my intent was to harm you, then I have clearly violated the NAP. But what about if my intent was only to keep warm? Have I violated the NAP?

 

 

 

intent ? ... I really don't think you want to go there. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' has some bit of truth in it. Every atrocity we know of in history had some 'good intentions' behind. Gulags, concentration camps, wars, taxes.

I don't really belive that there exists someone that wakes up in the morning and thinks. 'Hey ... today I'll do this evil despicable thing, just because it's evil'

Even to some psycho serial killers there's good intent from their twisted point of view for their murders.

PS: If I intend to kill my ex-wife that is using the state to extract alimony money from me. Is it good intent or bad intent ? Is definitely an overreaction .... but the intention I could argue is a good one, since I'm defending my property.

[Wesley]

I think in regards to the NAP we have to look at intent. So if I push you and you smash into a wall, that would violate the NAP. But if I push you and you smash into a wall, but you were about to get hit by a car then I have just saved you. If you are walking down the street and I stab you and run off, that would violate the NAP. If you are walking down the street and I stab you because your appendix was about to burst and I'm a trained doctor, then I have just saved you. So intent is important.

NOOOOO!!! Intent does not matter at all. If I am a communist and I intend to create utopia, but instead cause the deaths of millions am I not culpable? If I am a parent and I intend to raise my kids right by not sparing the rod, am I still not an aggressor of violence? If I am playing with my gun and accidentally shoot someone in the house next door do I still not commit a crime of muder with maybe a mitigating circumstance as a possible argument (maybe)? If my girlfriend says something that hurts me then OF COURSE she didn't mean it, but I still was hurt and it needs to be dealt with through curious exploration.

Now, if I push you into a wall to save you from a car, I would hope that you would thank me rather than press charges, and by far most people would. If you walked  up to me in the street and started harvesting my organs without talking to me or anesthetics, then that is pretty vile. You get a lot of pain and sickness and warning before an appedix bursts (usually at least).

So what about pollution? If I start a camp fire on my property to keep warm and all the smoke blows over to your property and you breathe it in and it makes you pass out then we have to determine my intent. If my intent was to harm you, then I have clearly violated the NAP. But what about if my intent was only to keep warm? Have I violated the NAP?

Also irrelevant. If I make a camp fire that gets out of control by my negligence and I burn down your house, then I am responsible for that. If I am burning a fire over the years that fills your house and gives you lung cancer, then I am responsible even if my attempt was just to grill burgers.

There are facts in your example.

1. I started a fire

2. You passed out

That is it. My intent can never be disproven or proven. If someone passed out and hit their head because of my fire blowing onto their property, I would do whatever I could to try to restitute them for that.

Intent is always irrelevant. Almost all of the most evil people in the world had good intent, but that does not make them less evil, let alone absolve them of their sins.

[DaVinci]

 

I think in regards to the NAP we have to look at intent. So if I push you and you smash into a wall, that would violate the NAP. But if I push you and you smash into a wall, but you were about to get hit by a car then I have just saved you. If you are walking down the street and I stab you and run off, that would violate the NAP. If you are walking down the street and I stab you because your appendix was about to burst and I'm a trained doctor, then I have just saved you. So intent is important.

NOOOOO!!! Intent does not matter at all. If I am a communist and I intend to create utopia, but instead cause the deaths of millions am I not culpable? If I am a parent and I intend to raise my kids right by not sparing the rod, am I still not an aggressor of violence? If I am playing with my gun and accidentally shoot someone in the house next door do I still not commit a crime of muder with maybe a mitigating circumstance as a possible argument (maybe)? If my girlfriend says something that hurts me then OF COURSE she didn't mean it, but I still was hurt and it needs to be dealt with through curious exploration.

Now, if I push you into a wall to save you from a car, I would hope that you would thank me rather than press charges, and by far most people would. If you walked  up to me in the street and started harvesting my organs without talking to me or anesthetics, then that is pretty vile. You get a lot of pain and sickness and warning before an appedix bursts (usually at least).

So what about pollution? If I start a camp fire on my property to keep warm and all the smoke blows over to your property and you breathe it in and it makes you pass out then we have to determine my intent. If my intent was to harm you, then I have clearly violated the NAP. But what about if my intent was only to keep warm? Have I violated the NAP?

Also irrelevant. If I make a camp fire that gets out of control by my negligence and I burn down your house, then I am responsible for that. If I am burning a fire over the years that fills your house and gives you lung cancer, then I am responsible even if my attempt was just to grill burgers.

There are facts in your example.

1. I started a fire

2. You passed out

That is it. My intent can never be disproven or proven. If someone passed out and hit their head because of my fire blowing onto their property, I would do whatever I could to try to restitute them for that.

Intent is always irrelevant. Almost all of the most evil people in the world had good intent, but that does not make them less evil, let alone absolve them of their sins.

 

 

Okay, so then the NAP goes down in the face of pollution like the article said?

[Wesley]

 

 

Okay, so then the NAP goes down in the face of pollution like the article said?

 

No, what it is is you have to prove harm and not have prior contract. So if I grill, I have to pick 1 of two options.

1. Figure out a way that pollutions doesn't go directly onto their property. Yes, maybe 1 particle would, but they would have to prove in  a court that it harmed them, which they would not be able to do. If I do not have enough property yo not occasionally blow on their property, then maybe I would have to install ventilation of some kind.

2. Contract. I go and talk to the neighbor who I cannot avoid polluting their property and ask them if it is ok, try to find a spot that would pollute them the least, or maybe allow him to grill near my property as well.

Obviosuly a large manufacturing plant would have a more difficult time doing this, and may need contract from more people, better cleaning, or more land to fit these criteria.

These are easily achievable in a free society to square the NAP with things that are achievable in the real world.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

Okay, so then the NAP goes down in the face of pollution like the article said?

 

 

Nope, it just means that one cannot live a life upholding the NAP in a pure unfaltered way. It just means that NAP is also a matter on how people around you see it.

While I can see people staring at me as a violation of NAP, because it creates distress to me, if I live along peers that do not feel the same way it isn't. If however everyone around me sees that 'staring at people' as a violation of NAP, then it might get enforced or somethin.

[Metric]

 

 

Okay, so then the NAP goes down in the face of pollution like the article said?

 

 

Nope, it just means that one cannot live a life upholding the NAP in a pure unfaltered way. It just means that NAP is also a matter on how people around you see it.

While I can see people staring at me as a violation of NAP, because it creates distress to me, if I live along peers that do not feel the same way it isn't. If however everyone around me sees that 'staring at people' as a violation of NAP, then it might get enforced or somethin.

 

Remember, the NAP is much more difficult to apply to individuals in contrived situations than it is to apply to institutions like government.  In the case of government, it's almost trivial -- men with guns coming around to take half your income whether you agree or not.  In the case of contrived trolley problems and the like, you can make anything into an agonizing case.  This is why the NAP can form the core of libertarian thought -- it's extremely clear cut when you use it as intended.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I don't see how pollution is a violation of the NAP.

We can tell the difference between dropping nerve gas on some people, obviously an act of agression, and someone lighting a fire or driving a car. Lighting fires and driving cars are normal parts of life with a non offensive function and a possibly offensive side effect.

If the pollution from lighting a fire or driving a car can be shown to directly cause someone harm then they would still have a legal remedy even if it were not an act of agression. If the level of pollution emitted causes surrounding people no detectable harm then a legal remedy is not reasonable.

The issue of pollution looks like an example of "the trouble with the commons", it would probably be worthy of discussion within that context.

[Guest darkskyabove]

This debate has emphasized two issues that have bothered me for a long time.

First, I submit a new entry in the philosophical lexicon: The Fallacy of Invalidation by Extremes.

The inability to rebut an argument on its merits and within its context, and thus, resorting to wildly imaginative instances, has become a fairly common practice. In webspeak it is a form of trolling. I liken it to a type of smoke & mirrors distraction; a favorite of statists and closet statists.

The convention is to respond to rational argument with rational argument. Those that resort to fallacious attacks are not deserving of full respect as they have already shown lack of respect for their opponent. This is where the YAD principle seems legitimate. One problem with YAD is that people who, at best, nit-pick like hungry buzzards, at worst, commit glaring fallacies, are usually spurred on by any interaction; they thrive on the attention. That's why I carry my handy spray bottle of Troll-Off. Many people seem to get more upset by being ignored than by being called names. But, most importantly, I have no need to attempt rational discourse with the irrational.

Second, along the lines of the YAD response, I introduce a (possibly) new term: Nannytarian. n. 1. A person who claims to be a libertarian, yet continues to, explicitly or implicitly, tell others how they should act, think, and feel.

Tssssssst. Multi-purpose Troll-Off!

[Metric]

 

First, I submit a new entry in the philosophical lexicon: The Fallacy of Invalidation by Extremes.

 

I don't think "extreme cases" are necessarily bad things to consider -- they can give important hints as to where some theory is likely to break down.  However, one has to be careful about what you can actually conclude.

For example, in the "guy dying of thirst vs. absurd price gouger," you're explicitly constructing an example where you can conclude nothing.  The guy is not going to try to conform to ANY moral theory -- he's just going to grab the water, as any animal would.  There is just zero application to anyone's take on government -- government is not a bunch of people in a situation where they are forced to behave like animals in order to survive.

 

[Naddrin Kentlar]

isn't it normal that when a model is presented along the words, 'general', 'universal', 'aboslute' people will try to find weak points in it. It is merely a metod of proof. Refuting the nitpicks with 'yay, yet another lifeboat scenario', or 'this would never happen' will only leave someone stunned in apoplexy after such a grandiose presentation.

Newton understood there's an issue with his work on physics because he couldn't really make gravity fit in. It didn't however make his work any less valuable.

I doubt people would try to nitpick it if it didn't claim 'infailability'. Just plain and simple present it as a better system, that works in a lot of cases, and doesn't work in other cases. And people should really be friggin sure about what they say when they start claiming 'universality', 'general', 'absolute'

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

I don't think "extreme cases" are necessarily bad things to consider -- they can give important hints as to where some theory is likely to break down.  However, one has to be careful about what you can actually conclude.

 

I agree that testing a moral theory by positing extreme cases is a valid endeavor. Maybe I should rephrase: Fallacy of Invalidation by Wild Speculation. That even rhymes. []

 

 

I doubt people would try to nitpick it if it didn't claim
'infailability'. Just plain and simple present it as a better system,
that works in a lot of cases, and doesn't work in other cases. And
people should really be friggin sure about what they say when they start
claiming 'universality', 'general', 'absolute'

 

Good point. In, general, I see a difference between nit-picking an argument and rationally deconstructing it. In the issue at hand the NAP is a principle, not an absolute law which claims zero exceptions. Zwolinski's article is a blatant straw man. He sets up a fictional version of the NAP, then proceeds to attack his own creation. Same rule of "being friggin sure" applies to rebuttal.

[Metric]

Just to rephrase one more time, I think a large number of these "extreme case" arguments are a special case of the following:

Take a perfectly normal man, and do brain surgery on him, removing the part of his brain responsible for moral behavior.  After the surgery, who can blame him for violating the moral principles you propose?  Therefore, your moral principles are broken!

Instead of surgery, substitute "dying of thirst" or "family about to die" or "falling from a building" or whatever -- anything that short-circuits moral agency for fundamental, biological reasons.  The conclusion of anyone actually using this argument will inevitably be that government doesn't violate any moral principles (since they are all broken).  But of course it is the argument that is broken -- moral theories only apply to moral agents, not brain-impaired rage-monsters.

[DaVinci]

I'm still struggling with the pollution question. It does not seem like an extreme case. If I'm walking down the street and someone stabs me, they have violated the NAP. But if I get stabbed in an operating room by a doctor performing surgery that is not a violation of the NAP because of my consent.

The hospital that performed the surgery pollutes the air in the cause of healing people, and clearly I prefer a little dirty air to dying. But some people are not dying and don't want to breathe in the hospital's dirty air yet they are being forced to breathe it. So the solution is either A. You accept breathing in the air as a cost of living in society, or B. If you don't like it, you can leave. But how are these choices any different than the ones presented by statists when we question taxation as force? They always say that taxes are a cost of living in society, and if you don't like it you can leave. Aren't libertarians being a little hypocritical with this pollution issue then?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

 But some people are not dying and don't want to breathe in the hospital's dirty air yet they are being forced to breathe it. 

 

Who is forcing people to breath pollution in? So long as you are free to move away no force is being used. Having a lit fire is not an act of agression.

If pollution from a lit fire did cause you or your property any detectable harm you would have the right to sue in common law.

If health care were fully privatised then there would be an incentive for people to get healthy and the polluting hospitals would be minimal in number. If they make too much pollution they get sued and sort out their problem.

This pollution issue is a farce. Pollution is an example of "the trouble with the commons", not the trouble with the NAP.

[DaVinci]

 

 

 But some people are not dying and don't want to breathe in the hospital's dirty air yet they are being forced to breathe it. 

 

Who is forcing people to breath pollution in? So long as you are free to move away no force is being used. Having a lit fire is not an act of agression.

If pollution from a lit fire did cause you or your property any detectable harm you would have the right to sue in common law.

If health care were fully privatised then there would be an incentive for people to get healthy and the polluting hospitals would be minimal in number. If they make too much pollution they get sued and sort out their problem.

This pollution issue is a farce. Pollution is an example of "the trouble with the commons", not the trouble with the NAP.

 

 

Freedom to move away is not the same thing as having consented to something. I can move away from a high crime area, but me moving, or not moving, has nothing to do with that I do not consent to having my property stolen or damaged. So how is this any different than a factory making medicine for sick people forcing those who are not sick to breathe in the polluted air? I do not consent to breathing in smoke from a factory.  It seems to me like the NAP completely applies.

[ABCD]

I guess Stef said it well. The NAP is just another way of saying "Dont be a dick". There are stil subjective human decision being made about what is considered aggression and what not. They say about pollution "Thats different" "-Everyone- who is -Sane- accepts a little pollution" I can't say I disagree with that. But how much pollution is okay and what is not? somewhere some jude or other person has to make this decision. Having a state isn't a solution. Having the NAP isn't a perfect solution either (but nothing is a perfect solution). How do you make sure the judges are reasonable and not brided? Difficult to answer. the key would be having a balance of power. And that means to reject unreasonable rates of taxation because thats just a form of extreme disbalance of power.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Freedom to move away is not the same thing as having consented to something.

 

You are right, it's not consent. However staying somewhere when you were free to move away suggests there may of been some kind of acceptance. Of course if the pollution was undetectable at the time, then no.

 

I can move away from a high crime area, but me moving, or not moving, has nothing to do with that I do not consent to having my property stolen or damaged.

 

I think I answered this, lighting a fire is not an act of agression, people do it to get warm, dispose of waste and such. So long as no one else is harmed then there's no reason to stop them assuming it's all done on their property. If someone is harmed then they should have a legal remedy, unless perhaps they were warned of the risk and stayed anyway. Theft and vandalism are acts of agression, there is no similarity, when these actions are carried out someone will definately be harmed.

 

So how is this any different than a factory making medicine for sick people forcing those who are not sick to breathe in the polluted air? I do not consent to breathing in smoke from a factory.  It seems to me like the NAP completely applies.

 

You don't consent to breath in atmosphere that I have breathed either. We both have an equal claim to use atmosphere in a way we choose so long as we cause no harm. If you want to claim that someone is harming you then the onus is on you do demonstrate this.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Nannytarian: Oh! The smoke from your BBQ is drifting into my yard. This is a violation of NAP.

Rational Anarchist: Stop being a dick!

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Nannytarian: Oh! The smoke from your BBQ is drifting into my yard. This is a violation of NAP.

Rational Anarchist: Stop being a dick!

 

Yes, I don't think drifting smoke from a BBQ is an act of agression!

It could be a real nausance, possibly cause damage (say they had a fish pond, linen out) and recourse to recompense through legal action might be reasonable. Just negotiating or telling your neighbors first would seem to be a sensible approach and if you live very near your neighbor then something more contained would be nice.

I think the "your a dick" label only applies when there seems to be no valid case presented or the case is frivolous. A response to it might be to point out that the other person isn't being considerate. And being inconsiderate isn't UPB?

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law

[gaborhelesfai]

I liked the rebuttal, though I would like to make a case for another perspective. As I view it, the NAP - since it is a principal - does not include a) how to treat people who violate the NAP or b) tell you how to live your life and what decisions should you make. If we take these into account, then the most problematic issue - risk taking - can be dealt with (pollution is a special case of risk taking). If there is a conflict, people want to solve it, and if they can't, they go to to a third person to settle their debate. Why do they do that? Because they are both part of a larger group, and they are dependent of that in one way or another. Not taking this path will result in mistrust from the other members of the community, which would affect the life of either parties. if you use violence to solve your problems it means you lack empathy since you don't want the other person to react, thus aggressive people are generally untrustworthy. For example: if someone shoots a kid because he climbed through the fence for his ball, the shooter would likely be ostracized from the community. This is the way the legal system emerges in a free society. If we accept this, Zwolinskis all points can be rebutted. Let's take the case of pollution. No matter what you do, you will have an affect on other people - sometimes more, sometimes less. But some may see it as an act of aggression - for instance you smoke weed on your property, but the smoke goes to the neighbor, who does not like it -, thus there is a conflict between these people. If they want to live a peaceful life in their community, they should solve their dispute without aggression, otherwise they could be no longer part of that community. In the mentioned example, in theory the neighbor could shoot the smoking person, but this would cause the others not to trust him, so a friendly talk or in extreme case a court hearing is much better solution.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I am of two minds. (Meaning I can see more than one side.)

 

If you CHOOSE to live in an area where your neighbors are only meters away, how much do you expect as far as an isolated environment? Granted, if I live in the apartment next to you, and smoke like a train, with the smoke billowing into your windows, "I'm a Dick!"

 

If you CHOOSE to live in a more expansive area, and I smoke on my property, which is 100's of meters from your house, and you whine about it, "You're a Dick!"

 

I consider this a common sense approach to living with others.