Border/ Grey areas in the NAP application

[alex_florida]

One statist disputing NAP with me and trying to show its logical inconsistency used an example the air we all breathe. I exhaled carbon dioxide, he said, and he was forced to inhale it. Doesn't it intervention into his body? If I followed NAP, why I would "touch" his lungs when I breathed with no his and the other people consent? Isn't it abuse of his lungs, his body?H If I followed NAP, I would have to stop breathing immediately! How could I counter this (and similar) arguments against universal application of NAP?

[ParaSait]

There's no moral responsibility to be found here, because you have no choice. You have to breathe. If he doesn't want to inhale your carbon dioxide, he can always move away from you.

[june]

There's no moral responsibility to be found here, because you have no choice. You have to breathe. 

1) isn't suicide always an option?2) you "have to" breath like you "have to" eat and drink. so is it okay to impose upon other people (in the OP the act of breathing is being construed as an imposition) to achieve those goals too, such as through theft? 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

One statist disputing NAP with me and trying to show its logical inconsistency used an example the air we all breathe. I exhaled carbon dioxide, he said, and he was forced to inhale it. Doesn't it intervention into his body? If I followed NAP, why I would "touch" his lungs when I breathed with no his and the other people consent? Isn't it abuse of his lungs, his body?H If I followed NAP, I would have to stop breathing immediately! How could I counter this (and similar) arguments against universal application of NAP?

There's no coercion. 

 

It's offensive to even have to respond to questions from such cretins. Don't spend too much time on these people. The "lack of consent for anything = coercion" argument is young earth creationist level thinking. If they persist, just pat them on the head and move on to people who are not trying to waste your time.

[june]

The "lack of consent for anything = coercion" argument is young earth creationist level thinking. 

but how do you gauge what is and what is not a breach of someone's selfownership without consent? consent is what classifies whether an action is voluntary or forceful.

[ParaSait]

1) isn't suicide always an option?2) you "have to" breath like you "have to" eat and drink. so is it okay to impose upon other people (in the OP the act of breathing is being construed as an imposition) to achieve those goals too, such as through theft? 

This is completely absurd, but okay...

 

1) The friend has the option of moving a bit. If he doesn't want to move a bit, you can move a bit. If you move but your friend keeps chasing you and says that you have to stop breathing, then he's initiating force because he's taking that option away from you. (plus of course, that would be a contradictory preference on his side)

2) There are so many other options available. A case where the only option is stealing, without some other moral actor forcing you, is so unlikely that it's infinitesimal.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

but how do you gauge what is and what is not a breach of someone's selfownership without consent? consent is what classifies whether an action is voluntary or forceful.

Lack of consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for coercion. The rapist doesn't consent to being hit when a woman is defending herself.  Does that mean the actions against the rapist are aggression? NO, they're defensive. 

Did President Obama get your consent to wear a blue tie? You are FORCED to look at the blue tie if you happen to see a tv screen. Did you you get my consent to to respond to this comment? Maybe I will take back my consent for that in the next 30 seconds. Does that mean you are now attacking me if you respond? Did you get consent for everything you did today? Did you get consent to get consent? Did you get consent to get consent to get consent?

Jesus wept. 

[dsayers]

In situations like this, it's helpful to dispense with the shorthand of NAP. The non-aggression principle is just shorthand for "the initiation of the use of force is immoral." Breathing is not the initiation of the use of force. It's not even a behavior given its autonomic status.

 

The statist was using a red herring to waste your time. For that matter, any time somebody describes a specific scenario to make their conclusion fit, they're not addressing the methodology behind that conclusion.

[june]

 

1) The friend has the option of moving a bit. 

 

you can't put a positive obligation on the person who is being violated. 

If he doesn't want to move a bit, you can move a bit. If you move but your friend keeps chasing you and says that you have to stop breathing, then he's initiating force because he's taking that option away from you. (plus of course, that would be a contradictory preference on his side)

so you are recognizing that breathing is a violation of another's body and thus an act force, and suggesting to avoid this violation such people should distance themselves from others? 

2) A case where the only option is stealing, without some other moral actor forcing you, is so unlikely that it's infinitesimal.

but in that instance, it is permissible, right?

[ParaSait]

you can't put a positive obligation on the person who is being violated. 

so you are recognizing that breathing is a violation of another's body and thus an act force, and suggesting to avoid this violation such people should distance themselves from others?

Wow, hold on a minute there. You're implying a lot of things that I didn't say.

Breathing isn't a violation of the NAP. If that friend prefers I don't breathe in his face and I keep doing it without leaving him any option of moving away, it's my violation of the NAP. If I take the initiative of moving away but that friend forces me to keep breathing in his face and "retaliates" by making me stop breathing, it's his violation of the NAP.

[june]

Lack of consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for coercion.

rather than just stating that as so, can you provide an argument? 

 

The rapist doesn't consent to being hit when a woman is defending herself.  Does that mean the actions against the rapist are aggression? NO, they're defensive. 

Did President Obama get your consent to wear a blue tie? You are FORCED to look at the blue tie if you happen to see a tv screen. Did you you get my consent to to respond to this comment? Maybe I will take back my consent for that in the next 30 seconds. Does that mean you are now attacking me if you respond? Did you get consent for everything you did today? Did you get consent to get consent? Did you get consent to get consent to get consent?

Jesus wept. 

great rhetorical questions. i agree with your implication that obviously it is absurd for consent to be required for every little action... but that only begs the point that i'm making, which is: how can what constitutes as "force" be known without the consent for every little action? why isn't obama wearing a blue tie an act of force upon a viewer's eyes? why isn't a person making noises outside my home an act of force against my ears?(bold is the fundamental important question)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

rather than just stating that as so, can you provide an argument? 

great rhetorical questions. i agree with your implication that obviously it is absurd for consent to be required for every little action... but that only begs the point that i'm making, which is: how can what constitutes as "force" be distinguished without the consent for every little action? why isn't obama wearing a blue tie an act of force upon a viewer's eyes? why isn't a person making noises outside my home an act of force against my ears?(bold is the fundamental important question)

I DID provide an argument. I gave you examples of acts of force that cannot logically be coercion. 

What do you mean "with out the consent" . Do you mean if EXPLICIT consent is not given at every single possible moment for everything? Everything would simultaneously be aggression and non-aggression at the same time. 

Why don't you just take it to the final level of nihilist retardation and say "Well all events involving the interaction particles technically are acts of force so really isn't EVERYHING force?  Ha HA checkmate Mister anarchist. Rape's no different from wind blowing. Ha ha! It's all just particles. Ha ha."

[june]

 

Wow, hold on a minute there. You're implying a lot of things that I didn't say.

 

i thought was implied because you didn't address the reasoning behind why breathing isn't a breach of the nap and instead talked about ways for which one can prevent it from happening, which is an attempt for solution after the act/breach. apologies for the misunderstanding 

If that friend prefers I don't breathe in his face and I keep doing it without leaving him any option of moving away, it's my violation of the NAP. 

it doesnt matter what he prefers, if breathing is not a violation of the nap then one can breath in his face all they like and they would not be breaching the nap. 

Breathing isn't a violation of the NAP. 

but WHY? you havent actually explained it yet

[andkon]

One statist disputing NAP with me and trying to show its logical inconsistency used an example the air we all breathe. I exhaled carbon dioxide, he said, and he was forced to inhale it. Doesn't it intervention into his body? If I followed NAP, why I would "touch" his lungs when I breathed with no his and the other people consent? Isn't it abuse of his lungs, his body?H If I followed NAP, I would have to stop breathing immediately! How could I counter this (and similar) arguments against universal application of NAP?

 

It's silly because there's no harm or aggression in small amounts of CO₂. Now, if I blasted a hose of nothing but CO₂ to the point where he couldn't breathe, that's a different matter.

[ParaSait]

 

but WHY? you havent actually explained it yet

 

If I'm simply breathing, how am I initiating the use of force?

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Why, exactly, are you having ANY conversation with a person who is willing to argue that breathing is an act of aggression against them?

[alex_florida]

I probably had to explain why this statist asked this questions, the chain of arguments.

1) First, I mentioned NAP.

2) He asked: what is NAP?

3) My answer was somewhat: It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another

4) He asked: okay, but what do you mean when you talk about violence? what is your definition?

5) I tried to give the definition of violence (or coercion, or violent force) as an act of a human against a will or without permission of another human with respect to his person or property (to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something with the body or property...).

6) And then he brought this argument about touching his lungs (body) by my breathing with no permission from him.

7) I tried to fend off it by telling that there was no harm to his body from me breathing.

8) He responded that I still was meddling with his body without his permission so this is violence by my definition, otherwise I need to incorporate "harm" to my definition of "violence". And if I have no logically consistent and universal definition of violence, the NAP is nonconsistent  as well...

 

This is where I stumbled...

[june]

If I'm simply breathing, how am I initiating the use of force?

because you are imposing on someone's property without their consent. 

 

 

your position appears very uncertain because you are taking sides on BOTH positions of the argument, which is of course contradictory. for instance, you have stated:

 

 

Breathing isn't a violation of the NAP. 

 

If that friend prefers I don't breathe in his face and I keep doing it without leaving him any option of moving away, it's my violation of the NAP. 

 

so which is it?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

because you are imposing on someone's property without their consent. 

Lack of consent is not the same as withholding consent.

If the person having to breathe the same air wants to argue that it's an act of aggression then they will be subject to that same argument. 

[dsayers]

Alex, I noticed that you didn't acknowledge my encouragement to be more precise. Did you not find it useful? I ask because while "NAP" may be a valid conclusion, the explanation offered above shows you've only guessed the right answer. You need sound methodology behind the conclusion. Both for your own sake in accepting something you fully understand and for the sake of people you try to share it with.

 

To get to NAP, you have to start with the axiom of self-ownership. This wouldn't be controversial to the statist in question since he referenced his lungs. If people are not fundamentally different in such a way that self-ownership wouldn't apply to everybody, then we all own ourselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is everything that goes behind the shorthand of NAP.

 

Obviously being shorthand, it's best left to discussion between people that accept this methodology. When discussing it with people whom it might be foreign too, much better is taking the approach from first principles. If somebody cannot correctly answer the question, "Who owns you?" then you know that something like NAP, which is several steps away from self-ownership is going to be lost on them. The statist was productive in asking your definition of violence. Since you didn't know how to logically arrive at NAP, this is why you got tripped up.

 

I'm very enthusiastic on this topic, so if for some reason you find my input not helpful, I would appreciate feedback on why and how it could be improved.

[TDB]

Doesn't it intervention into his body?

De minimis. Since he is also breathing, the harm cancels out, if you can even call it harm.

[alex_florida]

Gold Donator -- I tried to go from the first principals, from self-ownership but what he tried to prove was that I would not be able to come to consistent universal philosophical NAP from it because of grey or border areas in the definition of a physical force or violence. Giving examples of breathing "into his lungs" or "sounding" into his ears without his consent. I tried to fend it off that no harm happened. I also tried to tell him that it was his choice to go to the park where people speak and "sound" into his ears (he could also plug his ears)... but, with breathing, you could not offer anybody to leave the Earth:)

Finally, I just said that because we both (and all other people on the Earth) were breathing simultaneously, nobody could insist that the other guy invaded his property... but still these extreme, border cases cannot allow beg the question: where are the limits when the "uninvited" physical impact  is really turns to violent force (or a real threat of its application)?

[dsayers]

There is no grey areas in terms of breathing. For moral consideration, something must be a voluntary behavior that directly involves another person. Breathing is autonomic and therefore could never be described as the initiation of the use of force in itself. Additionally, it doesn't directly involve another person. Humans do not innately posses the ability to intentionally, precisely manipulate things at the molecular level. As we exhale, we are expelling molecules from our lungs, not actually putting them any place specific.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Gold Donator -- I tried to go from the first principals, from self-ownership but what he tried to prove was that I would not be able to come to consistent universal philosophical NAP from it because of grey or border areas in the definition of a physical force or violence. Giving examples of breathing "into his lungs" or "sounding" into his ears without his consent. I tried to fend it off that no harm happened. I also tried to tell him that it was his choice to go to the park where people speak and "sound" into his ears (he could also plug his ears)... but, with breathing, you could not offer anybody to leave the Earth:)

Finally, I just said that because we both (and all other people on the Earth) were breathing simultaneously, nobody could insist that the other guy invaded his property... but still these extreme, border cases cannot allow beg the question: where are the limits when the "uninvited" physical impact  is really turns to violent force (or a real threat of its application)?

Hi there. I believe I have refuted your argument? Could you tell me if I have not and where my rebuttal fails?

[alex_florida]

ProfessionalTeabagger -- thank you, I like your rebuttal

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

ProfessionalTeabagger -- thank you, I like your rebuttal

Thanks but I'm asking if you think any part of it is wrong. If it is not wrong then do you concede the statist's objection has been refuted?

 

To sum up my rebuttal, it is -

An act of aggression necessarily involves the initiation or threat of the use of force or fraud.

Exhaling carbon dioxide does not involve the initiation or threat of the use of force or fraud.

Therefore exhaling carbon dioxide is not an act of aggression. 

[alex_florida]

dsayers -- thank you, I also think that you can judged philosophical grounds only if you can act on the base of a free will, you have a choice

ProfessionalTeabagger -- I agree, no free will here, no choice

[MarkIX]

One statist disputing NAP with me and trying to show its logical inconsistency used an example the air we all breathe. I exhaled carbon dioxide, he said, and he was forced to inhale it. Doesn't it intervention into his body? If I followed NAP, why I would "touch" his lungs when I breathed with no his and the other people consent? Isn't it abuse of his lungs, his body?H If I followed NAP, I would have to stop breathing immediately! How could I counter this (and similar) arguments against universal application of NAP?

So If you pee in the toilet and then he drinks from it that is your problem too Right?

1) isn't suicide always an option?2) you "have to" breath like you "have to" eat and drink. so is it okay to impose upon other people (in the OP the act of breathing is being construed as an imposition) to achieve those goals too, such as through theft? 

The other party "has to" breathe like he has too eat and drink. No one makes him breathe the "tainted air" why do you think he does?

[greekredemption]

There's no moral responsibility to be found here, because you have no choice. You have to breathe. If he doesn't want to inhale your carbon dioxide, he can always move away from you.

And a starving man has to steal.

[st434u]

The grey areas have to do with the delimitation of property which is abundant, and not with a particular action per se. Air, for instance is abundant. So much so, that nobody cares to set up systems for keeping their own air from being contaminated by others's air. Thus we have to rely on "environmental regulation" to deal with massive air pollution only, but small amounts of pollution can be tolerated.

 

If someone breathing CO2 into your air was a big deal, you could always build an airtight containment space large enough for you and all of your plants, so that you could breathe only from your own supply of oxygen, and let your plants breathe your own CO2. Or you could buy oxygen in the market and pump it into your own breathing space. You could also charge people a fee for breathing your oxygen and exhaling their CO2 into your air.

 

Something like this is likely to happen if humans start to privately colonize other planets.

[june]

I DID provide an argument. I gave you examples of acts of force that cannot logically be coercion. 

 

no, you provided rhetorical questions, rhetorical questions which begged the point that i'm making, and so i asked for you to answer those rhetoricals so you can actually explain why they feed into your argument. 

 

Do you mean if EXPLICIT consent is not given at every single possible moment for everything? Everything would simultaneously be aggression and non-aggression at the same time. 

 

no, it would just be aggression, because it is an unconsented act of imposition on another's property rights.it seems you are continuing to misunderstand my position. i know that for every little unconsented action to be considered an act of aggression is completely absurd. but the argument is that such acts are considered acts of aggression within the nap -- which thus makes the nap absurd.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

no, you provided rhetorical questions, rhetorical questions which begged the point that i'm making, and so i asked for you to answer those rhetoricals so you can actually explain why they feed into your argument.

 

no, it would just be aggression, because it is an unconsented act of imposition on another's property rights.

 

it seems you are continuing to misunderstand my position. i know that for every little unconsented action to be considered an act of aggression is completely absurd. but the argument is that such acts are considered acts of aggression within the nap -- which thus makes the nap absurd.

No, I gave examples of acts that cannot logically be coercion. 

 

"no, it would just be aggression, because it is an unconsented act of imposition on another's property rights."

 

No, because you didn't get consent to do the opposite of those things either. If wearing a blue tie, or breathing or having a child is an act of aggression because you did not get explicit consent then the opposite of those would also be aggression because you didn't get explicit consent. 

 

I KNOW you know it's absurd. This cuntishly stupid argument (which is quite old) is a desperate reductio ad absurdum. The definitions of violence/aggression given by the OP are not correct. He sets up the straw-man by defining aggression in a way that can be made absurd. Such acts that you mention are NOT considered acts of aggression within the nap. It's complete bullshit that you just made up. 

If one chooses to define aggression in that silly way (an act of a human against a will or without permission of another human with respect to his person or property (to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something with the body or property...) then yes the nap WOULD be absurd. If you redefine anyone's terms in an absurd way then their argument will appear absurd. It's just lame sophistry. 

Also, I'm highly suspicious of the OP. I found his story too convenient (the chances of him becoming a non- statist without having heard this fallacious argument against the nap is extremely unlikely) and his definition of aggression sets up a straw-man. He's also failed to address any rebuttals. See above for proof.

[alex_florida]

ProfessionalTeabagger -- >> The definitions of violence/ aggression given by the OP are not correct... in a way that can be made absurd>>

 

Then can you please give your definition of violence/ aggression?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

ProfessionalTeabagger -- >> The definitions of violence/ aggression given by the OP are not correct... in a way that can be made absurd>>

 

Then can you please give your definition of violence/ aggression?

Aggression is the initiation the of the use of force or fraud. 

[alex_florida]

st434u-- This - delimitation of property. Thank you.

 

ProfessionalTeabagger-- yes, probably your correction of the definition helpful because you can go from idea that breathing is not initiation of force in itself then