Is NAP a circular argument?

[NoTreason]

and if so why do we use it in philosophical debate of ownership rights???

 

 

http://mattbruenig.com/2014/01/29/how-a-reductio-ad-absurdum-works/

[Wuzzums]

 

 

• If justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle, then people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that.

 

The only way this holds true is if theft does not violate the non-aggression principle. Which it does. Thus the argument falls apart.

 

NEXT!

[Pepin]

I really admire this person's ability to write without consequence. Whenever I write something addressing philosophical matters, I have quite the difficult time of refraining from thinking.

[cab21]

NAP

theft is wrong

going into someones house and grabing things one does not own or have permission to grab is theft

theft is not NAP

it is ok to respond to theft.

 

If justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle, then people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you CAN  use force to prevent that if the people are commiting a act of theft.

 

if the question is what belongs to who. then you look at NAP as part of libertarian property theory

[NoTreason]

The only way this holds true is if theft does not violate the non-aggression principle. Which it does. Thus the argument falls apart.NEXT!

They state it's not theft, and that the initial force is with the property owner implying force to defend a right to this 'private' property.Goods are scarse and before you came along and planted a flag in the ground saying property was yours everyone had an equal right to the use of that property, you took it without the permission of anyone else, and will initiate force to prevent everyone else from using it. That's the argument anyway.The NAP fails because the property owner took ownership of land with the use or threat of force against anyone else. The act of owning/claiming property alone initiates the use of or threat of force.My personal opinion is that the NAP IS a circular argument and does beg the question.I think NAP should be dropped from libertarian discussion.We argue not against aggression as a principle, but instead of when aggression is justified...which isn't NAP.

[dsayers]

 

I explained that the principle that you should not initiate force against other people generates the conclusion that we must create the grab-what-you-can world.

 

Not only are we incapable of creating a world at all, grab what you can (in his context) is the polar opposite of not initiating the use of force.

 

 

 In this world, people are free to do whatever they want so long as they do not literally bring force against another person. Grabbing up non-human pieces of the world does not bring force against another person.

 

This idea simultaneously accepts and rejects self-ownership. In order to make the distinction of initiating the use of force against a person, self-ownership must be valid. However, if self-ownership is valid, then the effects of that self-ownership is valid, which includes "non-human pieces of the world."

 

 

But preventing someone from grabbing up non-human pieces of the world does.

 

We must assume that he meant interrupting since preventing somebody from stealing doesn't even need to include person to person interaction. Still, theft is the initiation of the use of force, so the interruption of it cannot be.

 

 

So, the grab-what-you-can world is the only world that follows the non-aggression principle.

 

A valid principle follows the real world, not the other way around.

 

 

If justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle, then people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that.

 

Burglary is a type of theft and is the initiation of the use of force, so the interruption of it cannot be. This is a very common mistake where a dissenter will see "initiation of the use of force" and focus on force when the operative word is initiation.

 

 

It's quite clear that no libertarians actually believe in the NAP anyways. They believe in a particular positive theory of entitlement and property rights and are willing to use aggressive force to impose it on people.

 

If somebody is willing to use aggression to impose something on people, they're not libertarians.

 

 

You cut the NAP out from underneath some libertarians, and you basically see their life flash before their eyes.

 

Vague language. Otherwise, it's stating the obvious. It's not unlike saying that democracy falls when you cut mob rule "out from underneath" them. This is conditional though. It's predicated on the invalidation of the NAP, which is the principle of human interaction that is universalize-able and is the most consistent and sustainable.

 

 

certain phrases just mean a lot to people, and “non-aggression” is one of them.

 

This statement 1) suggests that the degree of enthusiasm can be used as a measure of validity and 2) implies that he himself would welcome assault, rape, and murder because to do so would prove his own lack of enthusiasm for non-aggression.

 

 

All theories think you should not initiate force against others or violate their theory of what belongs to whom. They just have differing theories of what belongs to whom.

 

He has misused the word theory here because once a theory is proven to not conform with the real world, it must be revised or rejected until such a time that it does. That aside, he's actually making the case FOR libertarianism as the fact that other "theories" redefine who owns what you earn to justify the initiation of the use of in the form of taxation or worse for resisting, does not make them true.

 

 

It's a comical absurd mess.

 

And yet he is unable to make a case against it.

 

Most of his article is just attaching as many words of negative connotation as possible. He maligns the lack of use of principled arguments while not offering any principled arguments. Near as I can tell from the context, he got into a twitter debate with somebody who accepts the position but isn't efficient in presenting the case, and used it as a baseline "proof" of its invalidation. Again, this is not a principled argument.

[NoTreason]

"If somebody is willing to use aggression to impose something on people, they're not libertarians."

 

Libertarians use aggression to impose their ownership of land and resources on other people...other people that had an equal right to the use of that land before the libertarian stuck a flag in the ground and started using force and initiating violence against anyone that would walk across their arbitrary borders of 'private land'

[Wuzzums]

Now you've got to define property. The way I see it you do not own land just because you stuck some stick into it. You own it because you invested in it. You own anything which you have control over and which exists only as a result of your work. So when someone comes and takes some of your land they in fact take some of your work. And because your work is a result of your body's dynamics then in fact they took away part of your body. I assume you agree that you own yourself fully, so given that what would you call someone that takes away part of yourself? And how can they take away that part of yourself by not using force?

[cab21]

Goods are scarse and before you came along and planted a flag in the ground saying property was yours everyone had an equal right to the use of that property, you took it without the permission of anyone else, and will initiate force to prevent everyone else from using it. That's the argument anyway.

 

 

people don't own land by planting a flag around land, but by using the land

you don't need permission to use what nobody owns.

people don't own land they never used, people have the right to own unused land, after they use it.

 

the land ownership of a house has  measured dimensions, not arbitrary.

 

 

to say everyone owns everything, and any one person needs to get permission to use anything, from everyone

so if one person wants to eat a apple, that person needs a vote from 6 billion people in the world to get permission to eat a apple or be called a theif?

[dsayers]

Libertarians use aggression

 

Again, if they use aggression, they're not libertarians. The use of aggression is literally the null hypothesis for the evaluation of libertarian. It's like talking about the purples that are yellow.

[NoTreason]

Libertarians use aggression and force to defend/maintain their ownership of private property.

 

So it is incorrect to say that non-aggression is a principle of libertarianism...

[dsayers]

How do you know? Maybe you missed the null hypothesis bit. You are saying, "That bird is a banana because it's yellow, curved, can be peeled, and is a sweet source of potassium."

 

How many times do you have to repeat something in order to make it true? I've never tried so I'm curious.

[cab21]

using force to defend, maintain your own property is not breaking NAP.

it's the initiation of force that breaks NAP, not all force. it's the initiation of force that is wrong, not force to defend against others that initiated with force.

[Xeeg]

The question here is, how do you get property in the first place? If the land was everyone's, and you try to use it, then everyone has a right to defend it. This is the argument for the state, as it is a representation of a large group of people and can defend the public land from private users.

 

When a baby is born, what property does it own? How does it obtain property as it grows older? We must first understand how to obtain property before we can talk about defending it.

 

In order to claim that one can morally obtain property according to the NAP, one must take it from no one. This is the argument against the state, that only individuals can own things, not groups of people. If groups of people can own things, then there is nothing morally wrong with the state because it is just a large group of people that hire enforcers to defend their alleged collective property.

 

The problem with saying that no one owns land until one uses it, is that we are living in a world where basically all the land/resources are claimed by one group or another. And these people/groups have the right to defend their property, yes? A newborn baby in 2014 has no chance to grow up and obtain land from no one, they must take or buy it from someone or a group of someones.

 

Since taking it from someone implies stealing, which is already considered immoral, then they must buy it. In order to buy it they must obtain money, and in order to get money they must perform useful work for someone else.

 

But a newborn baby cannot perform useful work for someone else. They require years of nurturing, feeding, training before they can be useful to someone. Without the aid of a collective group of people, these newborn babies are entirely dependant on their parent's ability to provide for them. If their parents aren't that great at this, then they suffer a disadvantage to those who have "better" parents. So in the end, a "groupless = stateless" society is one that caters only to the families that provide better training for their children so that they can perform useful work, or inherit resources from their parents.

[dsayers]

we are living in a world where basically all the land/resources are claimed by one group or another

 

1) This isn't true.

2) Claim isn't ownership.

3) People are born and die every day.

[Xeeg]

1) This isn't true.

2) Claim isn't ownership.

3) People are born and die every day.

 

1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html - Over half of the land on the planet is farmland according to sattelite photos

 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/territorial_disputes_how_much_of_the_earth_is_claimed_by_multiple_countries_.html

- about .5% of earth's land is under dispute of ownership.

 

Please don't just say something isn't true without showing your references.2. Claim is a part of ownership, as is the ability to defend your claim. It is not as simple a concept as some would have you believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

 

3. In the last 100 years human population has gone from 1.7 billion to around 7 billion people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svgSo Dsayers, the challenge is back to you to show me how a newborn baby gets to own things without help from anyone.

[cab21]

So Dsayers, the challenge is back to you to show me how a newborn baby gets to own things without help from anyone.

 

 a newborn is simply going to die without help from anyone.

 

 a newborn does get help from people, and that helps the newborn grow into a person that can own things.

 

that is different from a newborn, automaticly owning a part of everything without helping anyone else.

[Xeeg]

 a newborn is simply going to die without help from anyone.

 

Exactly. So now the question becomes, who should help the newborn?

[cab21]

Exactly. So now the question becomes, who should help the newborn?

 

the parents are a start, the community the parents are in is a start, someone who wants to adopt the newborn is a option. people that accept the baby is a start.

 

a community or individual that does help a new born, is then able to trade with that newborn once that newborn grows. people that think it is worth taking care of the newborn can do so.

 

this is not to say community's or helping each other is to be forced, but community's and individuals can choose to create and distribute the wealth the individuals and communities create.

 

some people take great pleasure in taking care of babies, those people adopting from those that had babies but don't care for the baby the same way, is a way of taking care of the babies.

 

a baby might be separated from one person, and connected to another. perhaps someday they all connect, but this connection is not to be forced.

[dsayers]

who should help the newborn?

 

What is your answer to this question. The answer is so obvious to me that I have difficulty accepting that the question is sincere.

[cynicist]

Libertarians use aggression to impose their ownership of land and resources on other people...other people that had an equal right to the use of that land before the libertarian stuck a flag in the ground and started using force and initiating violence against anyone that would walk across their arbitrary borders of 'private land'

 

You are arguing with the premise that everyone owns everything collectively before someone else claims ownership, but the truth is that until something is claimed it is unowned. 

[RyanT]

You are arguing with the premise that everyone owns everything collectively before someone else claims ownership, but the truth is that until something is claimed it is unowned. 

 

Funnily enough that's an idea I was kicking around last night at work, 

 

Statists in general and socialists in particular nearly always attack anarchists and libertarians with the old 'argument by adjectives' 

specifically 'you're all greedy' 'you're all selfish' ect

 

but if wanting to own your own home....or your own body, did make you 'selfish'

then just how much more selfish would you be, for wanting in effect, 

own the homes and bodies of people you've never even met?   

[labmath2]

Ownership today is a legal claim. To shift ownership from legal to ethical construct, one must redefine ownership in such a way that people know what is necessary and what is sufficient for ownership. The problem some people have with claims of ownership over natural resources, very much like the reason Stefan rejects IP, is the use of force to get others to comply to a set of rules they may not agree to. This does not mean there is no case for ownership, but ownership should at least entail current use which makes it rather difficult for someone else to use the resource. The case can be made for self-ownership as a foundation for ethical property rights, but that is language manipulation at best. Do i own my body because i control it, or control it because i own it? The answer there is pretty clear, i own it because i control it. What about land, do i own it because i control it, or control it because i own it? Here the answer is more elusive, since control and ownership are essentially the same thing. Someone who has a land they are not using is engaged in the same act as those who enforce IP. They are making a property scarce by restricting its use. The problem with the idea of ownership as is well understood today is problem of planting flags. I can build a house i never have to use and it will remain mine forever. I can homestead land just to wait till some new natural resource is discovered on it that can make me money. There is no obligation to use the resource to retain ownership over the resources. This does not mean you have to do something with the resource every year, but some time limit has to be set, otherwise we are just inviting property trolls to screw up the value of things.