Extrapolating from the NAP - Getting It Wrong... is a Nightmare (and probably common)

[Ben Doolin]

I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance a couple days ago about the NAP.

His position was that the NAP was a 'nice to have' for the Voluntary Society... but not foundational.

I completely objected suggesting that the NAP... is... the thing that needs to be generally accepted (with no exclusion for the state) for a Voluntary Society to exist... that the NAP... is THE foundation.

After LOTS of round and round what we came down to was that we both accepted the common usage of the NAP to mean that the initiation of the use of force is immoral.  We each extrapolated from that VERY different things.

Morality being broken into two categories 'Morality' (as commonly used) the set of values one holds for one's self and may value in others... and Enforceable Ethical rules... those actions which would be subject to another's legitimate right of defense of self of property.

His extrapolation from the NAP was that since the initiation of the use of force is immoral... 'I should not aggress against others' (a moral rule).

My extrapolation from the NAP is that since it is immoral for another to aggress against me or my property... self ownership and ownership of property is valid... and I have the legitimate right to defend both (an ethical rule).

The resolution of this discussion was me asking how he described my 'ethical description'.  He responded with the concept of 'Right Of Domain' (something I'd never heard of before).  Effectively the equivalent of my extrapolation of the NAP.

My final comment was... that if you extrapolate a moral rule 'I should not violate others'... then you should never even bring up the NAP.  People will object to their obligation to follow other's morality... will point out that there are 'bad people' that won't even if they do... and the result is a complete rejection of the Voluntary Society for seeing the NAP as foundational... and... something that won't work.

I suggested that he never bring up the NAP, instead to suggest that the ROD is the foundation of a Voluntary Society... although... that didn't seem like a good plan to me... since the NAP is likely brought up in every 'first conversation' on the idea of the Voluntary Society... I'd never even heard of the ROD... AND... correctly extrapolated... the ROD IS the NAP.

 

[Pepin]

I'm really rather just a little bit a little lost.

The NAP is a theory that applies to humans as a whole, meaning it applies to all individuals that meet the definition of human. It would hold that it is immoral for a human to initiate force against another human.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

His extrapolation from the NAP was that since the initiation of the use of force is immoral... 'I should not aggress against others' (a moral rule).

My extrapolation from the NAP is that since it is immoral for another to aggress against me or my property... self ownership and ownership of property is valid... and I have the legitimate right to defend both (an ethical rule).

 

In what way did he find these two propositions to be inconsistent?

The way I see it, to aggress against someone is fundamentally diffirent than to defend one's self (property being an extension of self, through self-ownership). In the absence of the qualifier "except in the extremity of self-defense," NAP would completely negate self-ownership.

If he could find no moral discrepancy between punching someone who was attempting to rob you and punching a stranger on the sidewalk for no apparent reason, then you have hit philosphical bedrock. Failing that he comes to his senses and realizes that he asserts self-ownership on a daily basis, and that such a premise is foundational to his everyday existence, I don't think you have much hope of bringing that argument to any kind of furtive conclusion.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Here's the deal. If you don't want to abide by the NAP, good luck with that. I WILL EAT YOU LIKE PANCAKES. What kind of world do you wish to live in. Please stop with the pseudo-intellectual crap. If you have a problem with NAP, just provide your physical address, and someone will come see you. Take it from someone who has no need to respect your wishes, and could at any time take all that you have. And yet, I abide by NAP.

This entire debate is getting stale. What about the YAD principle: DON'T BE A DICK!

Keep it real. If you're not against aggression, you're for it. There is no quibbling.

Please stop acting like this is some school yard debate. Life and death is on the line. You are either for life, or, you are for death.

Life = leave me alone, to do what I feel necessary.

Death = tell me what I should do; because you are so much more intelligent than I.

Remember. if you are for death, other people, especially rational anarchists, know where you stand, no matter what you say.

[Ben Doolin]

The focus really was the meaning of the NAP.  He did agree with self ownership and the right to self defense... but his extrapolation from the NAP was simply a 'personal nicety'.  Since the NAP (as I extrapolate it) is the foundation of a voluntary society... referencing right to self ownership, property and self defense... this perspective was very problematic.  

It was enlightening though, in that it explained the point of view I've hit so many times before.  'The initiation of the use of force is wrong'... extrapolated to simply 'be nice' is a major problem.  It is a legitimate extrapolation... (not logically incorrect) but that point of view creates serious problems with those that take that position.  The implication is 'there are bad people that will not follow, therefor VS is invalid'.

So, this individual did believe in the things that I get out of the NAP... but used other... more convoluted justifications... and still referenced the NAP in discussions about VS... which I know have soured people to VS.

 

[RestoringGuy]

I do not think people I argue with say they are pro-violence or pro-aggression.  Violence and non-aggression are a bit like the term "Patriot Act" which can sometimes confuse and justify by a syllogism whose foundation is ambiguous grammar.  We are not against the entire universe of everything anybody might call violence.  We are only against what acts the word violence entails by some kind of standard, and things like property and what constitutes aggression always seem to require a discussion of what is a valid boundary.I try to keep my discussion of boundaries objective.  If the government can build a fence, I can too and most people seem to grasp that on some basic level.  I just do not think a simple principle like NAP can work in general, because we only move the discussion from "who can morally violate boundaries?" (presumably we all say nobody) to "who can establish new boundaries or dismantle old ones?".   There is possibly no universal way to answer the latter, because somebody will always be privileged.  The recently deceased will be said to have an estate that lives beyond their death.  All newborns will have to deal with old boundaries none of which they agreed to, while old people got to establish boundaries of their choosing.  Some people who have contracts will perceive it as violence when terms are not fulfilled, while others will say violence is not so amorphous as to be redefined by a piece of paper.  We could agree violence is wrong, but it seems like that is just saying "wrong is wrong" because violence is now whatever action is wrong as determined by only the subset of people we find agreeable and non-violent enough to trust.There is potential somebody can say "so what" and who cares if some people have privileged ability to make boundaries?  But the first caveman to think of it could declare ownership of the earth and make all of us eternal violators.  So I think we only feed the mentality of state legitimacy by allowing for privileged boundary-makers, and I am including here some criticism of the idea that non-violence should be partly based on the type of property rights we have conjured up in our minds.

[Ben Doolin]

This is the exact sort of 'confusion' I was referring to.

When the NAP is taken to mean a personal value... that some people will apply... it becomes irrelevant.  It leads to -- "Some people will, some people will not... and if that's the foundation of your VS then it won't work."

When the 'take away' from the NAP is that 'since it's immoral for people to initiate the use of force against me, then I have the right to self, property and defense.  Anyone violating me or my stuff... will suffer the consequence.

When that is the perspective... it applies to everyone, everywhere... all the time.  There is no confusion, no abmibuity and VS is not rejected for being 'unworkable'.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

When the NAP is taken to mean a personal value... that some people will apply... it becomes irrelevant.  It leads to -- "Some people will, some people will not... and if that's the foundation of your VS then it won't work."

When the 'take away' from the NAP is that 'since it's immoral for people to initiate the use of force against me, then I have the right to self, property and defense.  Anyone violating me or my stuff... will suffer the consequence.

When that is the perspective... it applies to everyone, everywhere... all the time.  There is no confusion, no abmibuity and VS is not rejected for being 'unworkable'.

 

Again, I beg the question; What makes those two situations mutually exclusive? NAP could be a personal value of yours, but even if it isn't someone else has the right to defend their body and their property from you. If you violate it, you will suffer. If they violate you, they will suffer.

The only way that there's any ambiguity about it is if you have people who honestly will not assert self-ownership and by extension property rights and the right to defend themselves. In that situation I would say it's more like a person attempting, in their ignorance, to divide by zero: No indication than dividing by zero is valid or that NAP is invalid.

[Ben Doolin]

I agree with what I think your question proposes... which is why is either extrapolation incorrect?  Neither are logically incorrect.  To take away from the NAP that "I should not violate others" I see as completely valid extrapolation.

The problem comes in... when the NAP is presented as 'foundational to VS'... and is optional (a personal value).

 

When the extrapolation from the NAP is presented from the perspective of allowing self defense... and defense of property... then being foundational correctly applies... and is relevant to social order.

 

If a person is going to present the NAP as an optional personal value... it probably shoulnd't even be mentioned... the same way that 'I like blue' does not apply to social order.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

If a person is going to present the NAP as an optional personal value... it probably shoulnd't even be mentioned... the same way that 'I like blue' does not apply to social order.

 

I certainly agree with that, but I didn't gather that either of you were expressing this above.

If that is the position being taken, you're arguing with a true relativist and I doubt very seriously they consider NAP of any value. If one is to maintain the position of a relativist, then principles of any kind don't make sense. They are not principles at all, but merely preferences. Taken to it's logical conclusion, the relativist must admit that some people have a preference for murder, rape, and theft, and that they have nothing to say about those people except that they subjectively dislike that kind of behavior. That seems to be the inverse of social order, not just inapplicable to it.

[Ben Doolin]

 

The individual I was having this discussion with is a very well educated, intelligent, reluctant Voluntaryist.  He runs a few Yahoo chat groups, one dedicated to VS.

He does believe in the NAP as I extrapolate it (right to self, property and their defense) but he rejects that those are legitimately derived from the NAP.  He described those rights as 'the Right of Dominion'... something I'd not heard of previously.

This became problematic with another chat group member that ended up more of a nihilist... suggesting that the only rights you have are what you can violently defend and that he is free to do anything to anyone that cannot defend themselves as he rejects 'other people's morality'... which is what he assumes the NAP to be.  Because of this position that he holds because of that extrapolation of the NAP, he is convinced that a Voluntary Society is impossible.

For Voluntary Society to work... recognition of the right to life and property must be 'generally accepted' (by the majority) with no exception for the state.

The NAP, correctly extrapolated... describes this.  But again... if extrapolated as a personal value that can be discarded by others... should never even be brought up.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

The individual I was having this discussion with is a very well educated, intelligent, reluctant Voluntaryist.  He runs a few Yahoo chat groups, one dedicated to VS.

He does believe in the NAP as I extrapolate it (right to self, property and their defense) but he rejects that those are legitimately derived from the NAP.  He described those rights as 'the Right of Dominion'... something I'd not heard of previously.

 

To be honest it sounds like he is a nihilist or relativist himself. To describe NAP as valid, but refuse to accept that anything can be extrapolated from it is contradictory. Either people will defend themselves from attack or they will not. Either people act as if they own themselves or they do not.

If one says that they don't accept NAP because the only legitimate source of "rights," are having the most force or coercion to establish those rights, then one is tacitly accepting NAP already without saying as much. They are asserting that someone who has the ability to defend themselves does not want to be aggressed against. The second party who is being coerced, by definition, is not seeking to be aggressed against, and is also validating NAP by the act of being victimized rather than complying out of recognition that the first persons commands are inherently valid.

This is why I find the relativist position to be so nonsenseical. It asserts that NAP is invalid, but validates NAP by asserting that the preference of the individual is supreme and defense of that preference is the only true rule. That isn't a refutation of NAP, but rather a crass re-wording of the definition.

[Ben Doolin]

 

Both believe in the NAP... but both take it to be a personal 'value' that can be disregarded.

 

[STer]

 

 

For Voluntary Society to work... recognition of the right to life and property must be 'generally accepted' (by the majority) with no exception for the state.

 

 

I'm constantly posting about the book The Evolution of Cooperation because it actually discusses studies showing what conditions are necessary for cooperation to thrive in a given system. A commitment to abiding by cooperative rules and imposing consequences for those who do not is required to a certain extent. But I don't think the extent was as great as we might think. I wish I could remember the exact numbers, but I don't think it was even a majority (I might be wrong though). At a certain threshold, non-cooperation becomes disincentivized to the extent that cooperation gains the momentum.

As for this thread in general, it hits on a problem that has bothered me for a long time. You can make all the arguments you want that rules like the NAP are not just subjective preferences, but moral imperatives. But guess what. Even if you were to succeed in showing the NAP to be totally objectively moral, you would just move the problem back one step to the fact that many people don't care about objective facts anyway. Whether the NAP is just a subjective preference or not, the fact remains that many people will live as if that is the case and therein lies the real difficulty.

[Ben Doolin]

 

Back to my extrapolation... that being the right to self, property and defense... when the majority believe this is correct... and I think a majority do now (just with the exception for 'the state')... then it doesn't matter about what the subjectivists think... they will get shot... and should the issue come before dispute resolution in this scenrio... the shooting will be seen as just (because the majority have supported the free market dispute resolution providers... that respect the NAP in this way).

That is why correct extrapolation matters.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

Back to my extrapolation... that being the right to self, property and defense... when the majority believe this is correct... and I think a majority do now (just with the exception for 'the state')... then it doesn't matter about what the subjectivists think... they will get shot... and should the issue come before dispute resolution in this scenrio... the shooting will be seen as just (because the majority have supported the free market dispute resolution providers... that respect the NAP in this way).

That is why correct extrapolation matters.

 

That's what I was implying, except I think that really means the correct extrapolation doesn't matter. Ultimately, everyone acts as if they own themselves and acts to preserve that which they believe to be their property through self-ownership.

[STer]

 

 

 

Back to my extrapolation... that being the right to self, property and defense... when the majority believe this is correct... and I think a majority do now (just with the exception for 'the state')... then it doesn't matter about what the subjectivists think... they will get shot... and should the issue come before dispute resolution in this scenrio... the shooting will be seen as just (because the majority have supported the free market dispute resolution providers... that respect the NAP in this way).

That is why correct extrapolation matters.

 

That's what I was implying, except I think that really means the correct extrapolation doesn't matter. Ultimately, everyone acts as if they own themselves and acts to preserve that which they believe to be their property through self-ownership.

 

Are you trying to say that, basically, what really matters is how people reflect their beliefs in action, not what they say in debate? So it isn't so important to get everyone to agree verbally. What's important is to get people expressing their agreement in action (even if they contradict that with the words sometimes).

[Ben Doolin]

 

Both of these individuals believed in the right to self ownership.  One declared a right based on 'Right of Dominion'.

The other declared that 'rights' are what you can successfully defend... and that he was 'better prepared' than average... to defend his right to self and property.

 

Still... my point was that for a voluntary society to 'work'... the majority must accept the natural right to self ownership and the ownership of property.

 

I prefer to use the NAP to do this as it's generally accepted already... and the right to self ownership and the ownership of property are legitimate extrapolations from the NAP as is their defense.

 

My suggestion for anyone that is going to discuss the concepts of a voluntary society with someone unfamiliar... is that if you're going to discuss the NAP, it should be from the perspective of reinforcing the right to self ownership, property and defense.  If not... the alternative should be your justification for those things... as those are what will matter.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Are you trying to say that, basically, what really matters is how people reflect their beliefs in action, not what they say in debate? So it isn't so important to get everyone to agree verbally. What's important is to get people expressing their agreement in action (even if they contradict that with the words sometimes).

 

Yes, I think that we can reasonably suppose people naturally act on NAP whether or not they verbally acknoweldge it.

Furthermore, I think the mischaractarization of this natural inclination by statists (such as the war of all against all, or the law of the jungle) is a tacit acknoweldgement of NAP. When they say that the strong will rule over the weak, what they are implying is that whoever can assert self-ownership and property rights will have property rights. Their continued supposition that this means the great majority will have no rights is in-fact an illogical conclusion. For if all of the supposedly strong individuals are capable of asserting self-ownership, so too are the weaker individuals able to do the same. The only disparity lies in their ability to defend their implied right to self-ownership, which is all too obviously negated by even the most basic self-defense mechanisms. So whether or not the "weaker," individual has a gun, is a member of a family with "stronger," members, or has ceded some of his own property to a defensive pact with other individuals, the result is the same. All people are acting as though they own themselves and the property extending from their self ownership.

 

My suggestion for anyone that is going to
discuss the concepts of a voluntary society with someone unfamiliar...
is that if you're going to discuss the NAP, it should be from the
perspective of reinforcing the right to self ownership, property and
defense.  If not... the alternative should be your justification for
those things... as those are what will matter.

 

I don't know that either approach would make a diffirence. As I've stated, It doesn't particularly matter what they say and a cursory examination of the lunatic political theories out there show you just how many illogical conclusions people can paint atop that canvas. What I think bears repeating to someone who is unfamiliar with voluntarism is that they are, in no small part, always acting on NAP and engaging in voluntary interactions. If nothing else it will prepare them for the inevitable time when the state has bankrupted itself and leaves broad swathes of society to get along without so much coercive state imposition.