Verbal Abuse & The NAP

[Phuein]

Powder and I have been discussing whether verbal abuse intrudes on the Non-Aggression Principle, and what response it may justify.

 

Verbal abuse, as in swearing, libel, defamation, insults, and labeling. We are excluding threats, because we both agree that threats violate the NAP.

 

My argument is that just like actual threats, to defame someone's character may lead to escalation of abuse, and the risk of physical harm. My example was a person being called "a terrorist." We all know how such a label can destroy human life.

 

Powder's argument is that since this does not directly involve the "initiation of force" or "violation of property", then even if there is a justification for a defensive response, the entire situation is not included within the NAP.

 

Does the 'initiation of force' include verbal abuse?

 

Are insults akin to threats?

 

What is a justified response to insults, and to what extent?

 

[MysterionMuffles]

I would say yes, insults and threats are violations of the NAP because if violating the NAP means asserting ownership over someone else's property, ie body, verbal abuse and how it affects your physiology can be an indicator of this. If someone insults you about something you're sensitive about, or makes a convincing threat against you, your emotional make up will produce chemicals from your brain and transmit them throughout your body resulting in a physiological response. To have control over somebody with just your words or even tonality of speech, I would think is a violation of the NAP if it can alter how your body feels and how you'll think if the verbal abuse manages to invoke paranoia of attack in you. That's the thing with verbal abuse, it may someetimes be worse than physical. Once you get hit, you got what you were fearing, but with verbal it's like the possibility of physical aggression is always looming in the air, thus you start to live in fear.

[FreedomNoFilters]

There is the concept of reasonable threat. For example, if I raise my fist, is it a threat? What if my fist is heading towards you? What if I am an inch away from you, etc... Aggression is a continuum problem. Likewise, if you have reasonable suspicion that verbal aggression will lead to physical aggression, then sure, it is a violation of the NAP.

---However, if you are being verbally aggressed by someone you know cannot physically aggress you (IE a paraplegic in a wheelchair) then it is never a violation of the NAP. Here are some problems with counting verbal aggression as a violation of NAP:

 

1. Violations of the NAP are moral ground for the use of force:You can tackle a shoplifter, and pry a stolen bottle of rum from his hands. You can shoot a rapist. However, whether you can use any force against someone who has called you an arse is very questionable.2. A slippery slope that endangers freedom of speech:As Walter Block says, its no crime to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. It is a crime if the theater's owner says it is. That said, banning any kind of speech is a very slippery slope that can be used for great evil.3. It is harder to define verbal aggression than it is to define physical aggression:To a devout (IE fanatic) Christian, a rational and non-confrontational presentation of atheism might appear as aggression. On the other hand, to a vocal anarchist who has a very thick skin like me, insults are commonplace and affect me very little (because they generally come from clueless people).---Just because something is stupid, evil, and aggressive doesn't mean it violates the NAP.

[jpahmad]

This makes make think of those radical Christians who spew anti-gay hate speech at the funerals.  I mean, standing behind someone's back who just lost a loved one and screaming that it was good that they died is just deplorable and deserves the appropriate response, which is whatever that person (the mourner) feels like dishing out.  In that situation , the NAP would be violated by the hate speech of the radical Christians.  However, in other circumstances, the NAP would not be violated.  Why can't these things simply be circumstantial?  I really don't see a slippery slope problem.

[powder]

Yup, what FreedomNoFilters says.  

 

To be clear, I argue that insults and defamation of character are not a violation of the NAP but threats of physical harm can certainly be.  If someone verbally threatens to kill me or harm me it is morally justifiable for me to take appropriate defensive action.  An insult is not the same as a threat from a moral perspective.  I don't really know what self defense would entail when someone calls you a moron.  

 

Also, I think it must be made clear that we a talking about adult volunteer relationships.  Verbal abuse against children is not the same.  

This makes make think of those radical Christians who spew anti-gay hate speech at the funerals.  I mean, standing behind someone's back who just lost a loved one and screaming that it was good that they died is just deplorable and deserves the appropriate response, which is whatever that person (the mourner) feels like dishing out.  In that situation , the NAP would be violated by the hate speech of the radical Christians.  However, in other circumstances, the NAP would not be violated.  Why can't these things simply be circumstantial?  I really don't see a slippery slope problem.

what would that 'appropriate' response look like, and who gets to establish that standard?  Like FNF says above, just because it is evil and stupid, that does not mean it violates the NAP.  

[jpahmad]

what would that 'appropriate' response look like, and who gets to establish that standard?  Like FNF says above, just because it is evil and stupid, that does not mean it violates the NAP.  

But Powder, in a free society, there is no "standard."  There is no judge that must compare an action to a book of standards.  Everyone, every individual, is their own judge.  The fallout of, let's say, my decision to punch the anti-gay activist yelling behind me, would simply be the reaction of my peers (which includes private businesses like DROs).

 

If we were friends in a free society, and we were attending my gay friend's funeral, and I did the very act mentioned above (punching the hate-speech guy)  how would you judge me?  Would you stop being my friend?  Would you stop doing business with me? 

 

Now the DRO may or may not decide to raise my rates.  However, I find it very unlikely that they would consider me a liability for acting in the way I did considering the circumstances.  Furthermore, in a free market, there is always another DRO company that would take me on if I was dropped by the other one.  It's all circumstantial.  It's all individuals making decisions about their relationships.  There is no rule of law.  No book of standards.

[percentient]

Just like there is a distinction to be made between threats and verbal abuse, there is a difference between defamation and insults. The former deals with verifiable, specific actions (e.g. the aforementioned terrorist or rapist -- many would rather be raped than credibly be labeled as a rapist), and the latter appeals to subjectivity, emotions, and what people already believe. Insults attempt to be passive. If I call someone an asshole, this vague metaphorical insinuation has no precise connection to reality, the only deductible piece of information is that I dislike that particular person. If I call them fat, the literal meaning is a matter of simple truth or falsehood, and in essence I'm just invoking their insecurities and the connotations people have about overweight people. If I'm more sophisticated, I'll use wit:

 

Lady Astor: “If you were my husband, I’d poison your tea.”

 

Churchill: “Madam, if you were my wife, I’d drink it.”

 

These are threats, or even libel, they just convey a degree of disrespect. They say: "I have personally come to this conclusion about your personality or moral nature". In a real sense, insults are undisputable facts. I think this distinction has the potential to help us to think of defamation as a violation of NAP, with less fear of slippery slopes. If I'm credibly but falsely called a terrorist or a rapist, I might lose my job and suffer an assortment of social consequences. Am I in that case entitled to compensation? I'd say definitely.

[Psychophant]

I would say yes, insults and threats are violations of the NAP because if violating the NAP means asserting ownership over someone else's property, ie body, verbal abuse and how it affects your physiology can be an indicator of this. If someone insults you about something you're sensitive about, or makes a convincing threat against you, your emotional make up will produce chemicals from your brain and transmit them throughout your body resulting in a physiological response.

 

Only if you take it seriously. You are in charge of your body functions to a certain degree. Otherwise you could argue that if someone says something you don't like, it was an impairment of your body functions, so that someone occupied your brain functionality. Another example,  a "fraidy cat" personality, someone who suffered significant trauma in his life and his property, the body, would be violated on a constant basis, cuz any "false" remark would cause blood pressure to rise and his cortisol level, too.

 

It is a violation of the NAP in case of todlers, because their brain is damaged for the rest of their lives.

[percentient]

Only if you take it seriously. You are in charge of your body functions to a certain degree. 

 

I can think of two objections to Rainbow Jamz' involuntary response argument against insults, and this is one of them. I think it does not quite cut it. Yes, you can modify your personality, over time, for example by internalizing the fact that the bullies do not equal the tribe. You can be safe even if people hate you. Buddha's response to a bully according to cracked.com goes:

 

Asshole: “Buddha, you are one fat piece of work. Wow. I hope you eat some bad pork and die.”

 

Buddha: “If a man offered a gift to another but the gift was declined, to whom would the gift belong?"

 

Asshole: “To the one who offered it…but I really don’t see where you’re going with—“

 

Buddha: “Then I decline to accept your abuse and request that you keep it for yourself.”

 

and if you can achieve that; great. What does that have to do with the NAP, though? I can also carry around armor, making me impervious to some subset of violent attacks. That does not diminish the aggressors' ethical burden. I think the real difference is that you can leave. If the crap-slinging idiot doesn't respect your rejection, they are invading your space in a very physical way, and it is not an issue of insults any longer. Defamation, however, hurts even if you are not around.

[Phuein]

Just because something is stupid, evil, and aggressive doesn't mean it violates the NAP.

 

The purpose of the NAP is to justify aggression towards evil. It doesn't define evil, by itself, but rather says that once evil is identified, then it is moral to attack it; all in context of the society, of course.

 

For example, if another dude calls me an "idiot", then he is labeling me as an inferior person. If he does that publicly, then he may convince others that I am actually an idiot! And then others will treat me as inferior, because of how that specific guy treats me, and myself not stopping him.

 

That's bullying. There's no clear-cut evidence that the other person is endangering you, the victim, but you know that it will escalate, if you don't stop it. It always does. All forms of abuse do.

[Josh F]

Clumping these types of behaviors as verbal aggression makes it hard to distinguish them.  In truth, libel and defamation are fraud.  Fraud is a violation of the NAP when its issuers does so knowingly and with the intent to cause damage to your property (for example, saying McDonalds gives you AIDs on a news story without any proof will cost the company money).  Insults, however, do not damage person or property.  Insults aren't necessarily fraudulent, and can often be truthful. 

That being said, being insulting is often unempathetic, and not polite. But lacking empathy for someone is not aggressing towards them, and being polite is about aesthetics not morality.  I don't even really see a grey area in this discussion, and would like the OP to consider and discuss the emotions behind the argument.  There is much more to gain from that kind of RTR and honesty than trying to make the claim that insults are a violation of the NAP.  That argument is fundamentally not universalizable.  

 

I would say yes, insults and threats are violations of the NAP because if violating the NAP means asserting ownership over someone else's property, ie body, verbal abuse and how it affects your physiology can be an indicator of this. If someone insults you about something you're sensitive about, or makes a convincing threat against you, your emotional make up will produce chemicals from your brain and transmit them throughout your body resulting in a physiological response. To have control over somebody with just your words or even tonality of speech, I would think is a violation of the NAP if it can alter how your body feels and how you'll think if the verbal abuse manages to invoke paranoia of attack in you. That's the thing with verbal abuse, it may someetimes be worse than physical. Once you get hit, you got what you were fearing, but with verbal it's like the possibility of physical aggression is always looming in the air, thus you start to live in fear.

Then a woman walking naked in the streets is a violation of the NAP because it makes your heart race.  I think this argument is erroneous. And I think attempting to manage other people's emotional states is often a form of enabling.  

 

This falls into the category of Shaming, which is a topic I try and bring up a lot because it is common even within this otherwise lovely community.  To shame someone is NOT a violation of the NAP, and is often a tool in moralizing.  

 

Pause and think for a second everyone:  how many people find atheism insulting?  Anarchy?  Freedomain Radio?  MANY.  Just check out the youtube comments.

[Phuein]

Insults, however, do not damage person or property.

 

I assumed that it is understood that I am not arguing from utility. It is not whether an action causes harm or not. Threats by themselves don't necessarily cause harm, but they are accepted to be an initiation of force.

 

Also, if I accidentally hit a person, I have not initiated force, because it was incidental. It is only if I choose to attack them, that it is against the NAP.

 

So, this debate is about verbally attacking a person, not with the purpose of physical harm, but with the purpose of slander - or any other term that might fit the situation. Not benign, anyhow.

 

My example with calling a person an "idiot" is clearly not benign. Being an "idiot" is descriptive, and is meant to reflect another person as being mentally less able.

 

Sure, people can use it without actually meaning it, but then it is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Josh F]

Phuein, how do you feel about talking about this topic less abstractly?  I am curious to know what your personal feeling are on the topic, beyond the well articulated arguments.  Do you have a personal history with slander and/or just insults that make this especially relevant for you?

[powder]

I think Josh put it very well, I do not see a grey area either.  

 

The purpose of the NAP is to justify aggression towards evil. It doesn't define evil, by itself, but rather says that once evil is identified, then it is moral to attack it; all in context of the society, of course.

 

For example, if another dude calls me an "idiot", then he is labeling me as an inferior person. If he does that publicly, then he may convince others that I am actually an idiot! And then others will treat me as inferior, because of how that specific guy treats me, and myself not stopping him.

 

That's bullying. There's no clear-cut evidence that the other person is endangering you, the victim, but you know that it will escalate, if you don't stop it. It always does. All forms of abuse do.

 

I do not agree with this definition of the NAP, it does define evil, it is implicit in the wording  - Non Aggression Principle.  

 

You go straight from talking about evil to the example of a dude calling you an idiot.  I too would be more inclined to focus on your personal history with bullies and verbal abusers.  

But Powder, in a free society, there is no "standard."  There is no judge that must compare an action to a book of standards.  Everyone, every individual, is their own judge.  The fallout of, let's say, my decision to punch the anti-gay activist yelling behind me, would simply be the reaction of my peers (which includes private businesses like DROs).

 

If we were friends in a free society, and we were attending my gay friend's funeral, and I did the very act mentioned above (punching the hate-speech guy)  how would you judge me?  Would you stop being my friend?  Would you stop doing business with me? 

 

Now the DRO may or may not decide to raise my rates.  However, I find it very unlikely that they would consider me a liability for acting in the way I did considering the circumstances.  Furthermore, in a free market, there is always another DRO company that would take me on if I was dropped by the other one.  It's all circumstantial.  It's all individuals making decisions about their relationships.  There is no rule of law.  No book of standards.

I understand the free society reference but I am referring to your claim that the hate speech is a violation of the NAP, I do not agree with that.  

[jpahmad]

I understand the free society reference but I am referring to your claim that the hate speech is a violation of the NAP, I do not agree with that.  

 

I think it's o.k. to have differing views on what constitutes aggression.  It won't disrupt the healthy functioning of society in a free world.  This is because most people will be on the same page.  I think when you say something that is intended to invoke a physically violent/aggressive response in someone, then you are being the aggressor.  Those hate speech people know exactly what they're doing; they're baiting someone.  And because they are human themselves, they know what buttons to push in order to illicit an aggressive reaction.  This is sadism. 

 

There are some emotions, that when pulled and tugged at by an antagonizer, will cause someone to see red and lash out.  It could be described as "temporary insanity."  I think it's actually quite sane and healthy.  You mess with the bull, you get the horns.  It's beautiful and proper.  Is it a violation of the NAP?  Not in my eyes

[dsayers]

The purpose of the NAP is to justify aggression towards evil. It doesn't define evil, by itself, but rather says that once evil is identified, then it is moral to attack it; all in context of the society, of course.

 

Let us unpack "NAP." It's the abbreviation of non-aggression principle. Which is shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." Which is a conclusion that follows the concept of self-ownership as those behaviors simultaneously accept's one's own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of another. This rejection of ownership by another is the voluntary creation of a debt. Meaning that the settling of that debt was inherently agreed upon by the person who created it.

 

In other words, saying that that the initiation of the use of force is immoral is to also say that counter/defensive force is righteous (which is accurate). I think this is what you're trying to say, but isn't attributed to what you're referring to as the NAP. It should also be pointed out that identifying those behaviors as immoral is not a prescription (ought), but rather a declaration of their internal inconsistencies.

 

@topic:

I would argue that verbal abuse does not violate property rights so long as they could not be interpreted as a credible threat. For example, for a parent to verbally abuse a child by saying they will leave them at the store if they don't choose to leave is literally threatening a dependent creature with a death sentence.

 

On a side note, I have sensitive hearing, so I've always been fascinated with the exploration of whether noise pollution is a violation of property rights. Like maybe a protester saying somebody that works at an animal shelter is a murderer would not violate property rights. But if the person were to follow them around, perhaps shouting it out at their home, leaving the proposed victim with no escape, I think I would consider that a violation of property rights. I've always had difficulty taking a formal position in that debate due to my heavy bias on the subject.

[powder]

I think it's o.k. to have differing views on what constitutes aggression.  It won't disrupt the healthy functioning of society in a free world.  This is because most people will be on the same page.  I think when you say something that is intended to invoke a physically violent/aggressive response in someone, then you are being the aggressor.  Those hate speech people know exactly what they're doing; they're baiting someone.  And because they are human themselves, they know what buttons to push in order to illicit an aggressive reaction.  This is sadism. 

 

There are some emotions, that when pulled and tugged at by an antagonizer, will cause someone to see red and lash out.  It could be described as "temporary insanity."  I think it's actually quite sane and healthy.  You mess with the bull, you get the horns.  It's beautiful and proper.  Is it a violation of the NAP?  Not in my eyes

Good points jp, and I agree with your perspective, I just don't see it as a moral issue.  In general I would not have a problem with someone slugging a loud mouth 'aggressive' jerk whose intent is the antagonize.  

[FreedomNoFilters]

If verbal abuse is a violation of NAP, that necessarily entails that you are allowed to use force against people who spew out insults.@anyone who thinks verbal abuse violates the NAP:

 

Are you justified in beating up/arresting someone who has verbally aggressed you?

[jpahmad]

 

 

Are you justified in beating up/arresting someone who has verbally aggressed you?

 

Who decides whether or not we are justified?

[FreedomNoFilters]

Who decides whether or not we are justified?

If you are religious, you'd probably say "God"If you are a statist, you'd probably say "the state"If you are Stefan Molyneux, you'd probably say "nobody does," philosophy determines that.If you are Max Stirner you'd probably say "I decide!"

Regardless of who or what decides whether force is justified or not, just tell me:If I repeatedly call you a "fucktard" or a "ball-less piece of dung," do you think you are justified in beating me up? And why?

[jpahmad]

If I repeatedly call you a "fucktard" or a "ball-less piece of dung," do you think you are justified in beating me up? And why?

 

For "fucktard" I wouldn't be so angry.  But for "ball-less piece of dung", I would be infuriated!

 

That being said, if someone said that once, or in passing, I wouldn't react to it other than experiencing a passing annoyance.  But if they continuously harassed me with it, trying to draw a violent reaction from me, trying to bring me down, I would feel totally justified in lashing out physically if the sentiment overtook me.  I wouldn't want to kill them obviously.  I would just want them to feel the consequence of their actions.  I want them to feel something unpleasant, undesirable. This natural consequence would put an immediate end to my problem.  Let my peers judge me as they judge me.

[B1-66ER]

To me the NAP is crystal clear and unambiguous, NON AGGRESSION being the operative words in my line of reasoning. Having said that I do believe there is a difference between insults and abuse, the latter of course violating the NAP when the offended person has made the offender aware of such offence. The issue of children will inevitably arise and of course mentally abused women, but again unless the offender has been specifically warned of his abuses, I don't know that it could actually be construed as a violation of this principle. However regarding libel and slander, when it effects your ability to conduct business, you have every reason and cause to seek a 3rd party resolution, unless it happens to be true.

[powder]

To me the NAP is crystal clear and unambiguous, NON AGGRESSION being the operative words in my line of reasoning. Having said that I do believe there is a difference between insults and abuse, the latter of course violating the NAP when the offended person has made the offender aware of such offence. The issue of children will inevitably arise and of course mentally abused women, but again unless the offender has been specifically warned of his abuses, I don't know that it could actually be construed as a violation of this principle. However regarding libel and slander, when it effects your ability to conduct business, you have every reason and cause to seek a 3rd party resolution, unless it happens to be true.

You are saying that it is only a violation of the NAP if you are aware of the principle?  It is not abuse or aggression to hit your kid unless someone explains the NAP to you?  

[B1-66ER]

You are saying that it is only a violation of the NAP if you are aware of the principle?  It is not abuse or aggression to hit your kid unless someone explains the NAP to you?  

 

If that's the implication you've gathered I would suggest reading it again. I thought I clearly defined aggression as being physical and mental, but if I was unclear, I apologize. The mental/verbal abuse aspect is more difficult to clearly define which was the crux of my argument. 

[powder]

The issue of children will inevitably arise and of course mentally abused women, but again unless the offender has been specifically warned of his abuses, I don't know that it could actually be construed as a violation of this principle. 

I am not sure what you are trying to say I guess but this is the sentence that caught my attention, and it seems clear to me.  Is it not saying that if the abuser is not warned of his abuses they may not be a violation of the NAP?  

 

The causes of mental abuse, esp for early childhood, are clearly defined.  Perhaps the effects of that abuse are harder to identify is what you are trying to say?  

[B1-66ER]

I am not sure what you are trying to say I guess but this is the sentence that caught my attention, and it seems clear to me.  Is it not saying that if the abuser is not warned of his abuses they may not be a violation of the NAP?  

 

The causes of mental abuse, esp for early childhood, are clearly defined.  Perhaps the effects of that abuse are harder to identify is what you are trying to say?  

 

I'm referring exclusively to verbal/mental abuse. My thinking is, how can one be made aware of a transgression he doesn't know he committed?! You can't see an invisible line you've crossed until someone says you've crossed it. 

[Phuein]

Phuein, how do you feel about talking about this topic less abstractly?  I am curious to know what your personal feeling are on the topic, beyond the well articulated arguments.  Do you have a personal history with slander and/or just insults that make this especially relevant for you?

 

Good questions. For me, I have tolerated the results of verbal abuse for many years, by my society, and to the detriment of my freedom and needs.

 

For example, in my country, if you did not do full military service, than you are a "shirker" - you have "neglected your duties." Due to it being socially accepted as true, anyone who has that label on them is severely punished by Israeli society - not only the state itself. Many jobs won't take you, you are not given the many benefits that service-men get, and many people will have nothing to do with you. This is, naturally, enforced by law - through written proof of your service, or lack-of.

 

For me the problem is labeling, rather than swearing. I don't actually mind swearing so much, as long as it stops, when I say, "Stop." What bothers me is how people label others, and cause great harm to their social lives through that, often unknowingly, otherwise without admitting the results of such behavior.

 

People respond to labels. Even blatantly false or illogical labels, such as "terrorist" or "witch". And they label with the least effort.

 

For about 5 years, I used to walk around with a beard & dreadlocks. Au natural. I suffered so much abuse due to that, and the labels that this appearance has in my society, that some time back I decided to just keep a trimmed beard and combed hair. I could not suffer the abuse any longer. Harassment by police. People reacting to me with fear, for no reason but the hair. Everyone thinking I'm a junkie, to any extent, which translates into, "Bad person." ><

[Josh F]

ahh thats a whole other level, and horrible.  Sorry to hear that.  I'm curious, can you go to jail for being a "shirker"?  

[B1-66ER]

 

 

I'm curious, can you go to jail for being a "shirker"? 

 

 

Yes and no, the Army has a euphemism for it nowadays but the underlying sentiment is still present.

[David Ottinger]

I've always summed up the NAP as follows:

 

One does not have the right to claim the natural right or legal right to initiate force against another to inflicit harm to someone's body; to initiate force to cause another to assume losses or damages of property; to defraud another; to extort another; or, to break contract without cause.

 

 

So, as far as verbal abuse goes, I think it would only be harmful to children as they are still developing.  An adult can just walk away until cooler heads can prevail.

[Psychophant]

I can also carry around armor, making me impervious to some subset of violent attacks. That does not diminish the aggressors' ethical burden. I think the real difference is that you can leave.

 

There is no ethical burden in this case. A proper comparission would be the difference between rape and love making. If you give words power, they can destroy you. The same sentence is not abusive to anyone, it requires a precondition. The intent was harmless but the fraidy cat wees his pants for the next month, due to false perception. It is actually pretty simple. You cannot universalize meanings and perceptions, since mental conditions and language are about to change in context and on individual basis. It is like with active dreaming, you decide whether or not there is a boogie man, cuz you can change the story to your liking.

 

In the realm of objective reality, it is fairly easy, someone shoots and kills you, he is responsible. In the realm of language and mental conditions, it is not that easy. The bullets are only there if the person to whom has been acted upon is buying into it. If you do the Stef and say "it was just projection on your part and has nothing to do with me" the bullets go *puff*. 

 

I don't know how to put it easier. 

[Phuein]

ahh thats a whole other level, and horrible.  Sorry to hear that.  I'm curious, can you go to jail for being a "shirker"?  

 

Contrary to what others may say, the answer is clearly (and legally) a YES. People go to jail for shirking the "mandatory" military service, here.

 

Also, I've been to army prison, for refusing to be an infantry, which is another common occurrence, here.

[cynicist]

I think this is the reason that the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is specifically limited to force, threats of force, and fraud (theft). Aggression certainly includes harassment, yelling, stalking, bullying, or intimidation of any kind, but not all of those situations justify violence in return, and that's mostly what the NAP is trying to establish. (I do think that insults are a form of aggression, but only when aggression is defined as a hostile action, which is not the definition used for the NAP)

On a side note, I have sensitive hearing, so I've always been fascinated with the exploration of whether noise pollution is a violation of property rights. Like maybe a protester saying somebody that works at an animal shelter is a murderer would not violate property rights. But if the person were to follow them around, perhaps shouting it out at their home, leaving the proposed victim with no escape, I think I would consider that a violation of property rights. I've always had difficulty taking a formal position in that debate due to my heavy bias on the subject.

 

I've thought about something similar as well, the edge cases. What if someone placed a boombox outside of your house every night and actively tried to prevent you from sleeping? Or gas-lighted you 24/7? What about stalking? In any of these situations I don't think the use of force would bother me, even though they don't fit the literal definition of the NAP. I think there is a strong desire in general, and in particular in this community, for hard and fast rules when it comes to things like morality even when there are all kinds of exceptions and special cases that make such a thing near impossible. I think the best we can do is use the NAP as a guideline and then evaluate things on a contextual basis. It may seem obvious to us when looking at a specific case but hard to turn into a general principle.

[Josh F]

Contrary to what others may say, the answer is clearly (and legally) a YES. People go to jail for shirking the "mandatory" military service, here.

 

Also, I've been to army prison, for refusing to be an infantry, which is another common occurrence, here.

So when you talk about the slippery slope danger of verbal abuse, you're coming from a place with a very specific history of that exact thing happening.  Telling me this really helps to understand exactly what you were trying to express, and I appreciate it.

[powder]

Contrary to what others may say, the answer is clearly (and legally) a YES. People go to jail for shirking the "mandatory" military service, here.

 

Also, I've been to army prison, for refusing to be an infantry, which is another common occurrence, here.

sorry to hear you had to endure that stuff Phuein, good for you for saying no to that violence and coercion, I would have done the same.