Verbal Abuse & The NAP

[Phuein]

Thanks for the sympathy guys. You can imagine that I don't get any sympathy in my local society.

 

 

(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)

 

I thought that 'aggression' was defined as, "Showing intent to harm." What is the definition of 'aggression' used for the NAP, then?

[cynicist]

I thought that 'aggression' was defined as, "Showing intent to harm." What is the definition of 'aggression' used for the NAP, then?

 

That's certainly how I define it, but in terms of the NAP it seems to be limited to the initiation or threat of violence against a person or their property. I'm just basing this on sources like Wikipedia or Libertarian articles by people like Stephan Kinsella, though it seems pretty common in other Libertarian literature on a cursory Google search. I think the reason it's done is because it's harder to draw the line where defensive force is acceptable in other cases. Violations other than direct force are more subtle and harder to explain. I'm assuming that's probably why my other post was downvoted at first, because I mentioned that I thought it would be ok even in cases like stalking. 

 

I think it's a reasonable thing to do given how even that iron-clad argument is argued about or rejected by people.

[Phuein]

I'm assuming that's probably why my other post was downvoted at first, because I mentioned that I thought it would be ok even in cases like stalking.

 

I was the one who +1 your post, in order to neutralize it. I think the value of the argument that wants to either isolate the NAP from defining 'aggression', or expand its' definition of the term, has great importance in this discussion.

 

Isolating the NAP from defining 'aggression' makes sense, because the NAP would then be valid according to each society - with each society defining 'aggression' differently. That would be modular and reasonable.

 

To insist that 'aggression', within the NAP, only means, "Actual harm to person or property, or an actual threat to either," is to ignore a variety of horrible abuses and obvious attacks on people, due to a comfortable technicality.

[powder]

I don't know Phuein, doesn't the value of ethics, and the NAP lie in their universality?  The definition Robert just gave is simple and easy to apply universally.  If each society, or individuals, can ascribe their own definitions based on cultural or religious ideologies or personal perspectives, then all kinds of horrible deeds could also be justified if they don't fall into the category of 'aggression' but rather 'tradition' or 'honor' etc (like killing women for not being virgins).  Likewise, aggressive action could be deemed reasonable for non-violent verbal insults or criticisms.  Heck, that is already what is going on in the world and that is why we need universal ethics and the NAP. 

 

Why not just leave these verbal insults and assaults, as ambiguous as they may be depending on circumstance, out of the realm of the NAP and universal ethical definition; defamation, slander, whatever, and deal with them on a case by case basis?  I think people are pretty good at judging what are appropriate responses to the various forms these may take.  

[dsayers]

What is the definition of 'aggression' used for the NAP, then?

 

Did you find fault in the detailed unpacking I provided? If so, I'd be interested in fleshing it out. I see way too many people who get lost because they're too busy saying "NAP" while their brain isn't processing what it represents. Kind of laying saying forest for so long that they forget they're talking about trees.

[Phuein]

Aggression, as defined through property rights and thus the NAP, isn't as clear cut and unambiguous, as you guys present it to be.

 

Even in the original definitions and descriptions, threats to property are included, which are in themselves abstract. Threats are just words and actions, and any word or action can be perceived as a threat. Therefor, it's insinuated that a threat must be socially accepted, for socially justified retaliation.

 

I'm not saying that the NAP isn't universal. It is. Only, the term "aggression" is not universal, and it shouldn't be, either. There is no fault in having a universal axiom that is reliant on social (non-universal) terminology, in my view.

 

Cases of ambiguous threats and ambiguous damage to property [and person], such as pollution, disturbance, and compliance with social norms will never be universal. They are local, by nature. And they are all within the NAP, by definition.

[Josh F]

Aggression means force or compulsion.  It is the opposite of voluntary.  

 

I'm not sure what the ambiguities are... so if someone threatens your life you are entitled to defend yourself.  If someone threatens your property, you're entitled to protect your property.  If someone does something that inadvertently leads to the destruction of your property, they are liable for damages according to Civil Law.  If someone does something you simply don't like, this is aesthetics and is not covered by the NAP.  

 

For example, if I create pollution not intending to damage your property, either through error or ignorance, and I damage your property you're entitled to recompense.  You're not entitled to use violence against me.

 

If, for example, I play music loudly and you find it annoying, but it doesn't damage your person or property you're not entitled to use violence against me.  If you find it makes it hard to sleep and you're losing hours at work, you're entitled in Civil Law to recompense for lost wages.  Personally, I'd encourage you to peacefully negotiate with that person.  

 

If I insult you, and it directly leads to something which damages your property somehow then you're entitled to make the case.  You are NOT entitled to initiate violence.  

[dsayers]

it's insinuated that a threat must be socially accepted, for socially justified retaliation.

 

I'm not saying that the NAP isn't universal. It is. Only, the term "aggression" is not universal, and it shouldn't be, either.

 

"Socially accepted" is not a standard. If that's what you seek, nobody will be able to provide an answer. Taxation is socially accepted, but this doesn't mean it's not theft, which is the initiation of the use of force (aggression).

 

Whether or not consent is present is easy enough to understand. With the caveat that consent cannot be found where coercion is present.

 

Also, it is unclear as to what is meant by "'aggression' shouldn't be universal." You're asking for clarity, but then claim clarity shouldn't be available. Property rights are universal, so violations of them would be also.

[powder]

Phuein, no, they are not in the definition of the NAP.  I am waiting for you to make a clear definition if you do not accept the ones that josh and dsayers just provided.  

 

This phrase which claims that universal principles can be non-universal - "There is no fault in having a universal axiom that is reliant on social (non-universal) terminology, in my view."  

 

What are you arguing for really?  Seems like you want to universalize stuff because of stuff that has upset you.  If you do not accept the definition then give us an example of verbal abuse where you think it is justified to use violence or aggression to defend yourself.  

[labmath2]

Aggression means force or compulsion.  It is the opposite of voluntary.  

 

I'm not sure what the ambiguities are... so if someone threatens your life you are entitled to defend yourself.  If someone threatens your property, you're entitled to protect your property.  If someone does something that inadvertently leads to the destruction of your property, they are liable for damages according to Civil Law.  If someone does something you simply don't like, this is aesthetics and is not covered by the NAP.  

 

For example, if I create pollution not intending to damage your property, either through error or ignorance, and I damage your property you're entitled to recompense.  You're not entitled to use violence against me.

 

If, for example, I play music loudly and you find it annoying, but it doesn't damage your person or property you're not entitled to use violence against me.  If you find it makes it hard to sleep and you're losing hours at work, you're entitled in Civil Law to recompense for lost wages.  Personally, I'd encourage you to peacefully negotiate with that person.  

 

If I insult you, and it directly leads to something which damages your property somehow then you're entitled to make the case.  You are NOT entitled to initiate violence.  

 

If it is the case that one only has a moral right to ask for compensation if an immoral act was committed against them (violation of NAP), then playing loud music has gone from aesthetically bad to immoral in the example highlighted above.

[powder]

compensation or recompense is appropriate in many cases where ignorance or negligence causes damage or disruption to you or your property, this does not mean it is a violation of the NAP or immoral and you can take aggressive defensive action.  If someone bumps into your car and causes damage to you and/or you property (vehicle) you are entitled to compensation but you can't beat them up unless their intent was to take you out.  

[Josh F]

If it is the case that one only has a moral right to ask for compensation if an immoral act was committed against them (violation of NAP), then playing loud music has gone from aesthetically bad to immoral in the example highlighted above.

No, I was fairly clear on this actually.  The NAP is not the entirety of Civil Law.  If I accidentally trip while walking by your home, and crush your flower bed... I owe recompense but you absolutely are not entitled to shoot me with a shot gun.  And of course, accidentally tripping is not immoral.  

[labmath2]

compensation or recompense is appropriate in many cases where ignorance or negligence causes damage or disruption to you or your property, this does not mean it is a violation of the NAP or immoral and you can take aggressive defensive action.  If someone bumps into your car and causes damage to you and/or you property (vehicle) you are entitled to compensation but you can't beat them up unless their intent was to take you out.  

 

Unless i am mistaken, that example involves neither accident nor negligence. It will be easier if we start from the moment you find the music disruptive, are you allowed to require them to reduce the sound or stop playing the music? If they do not comply can you use force against them? I think this is the point Phuein was trying to make by saying "aggression" is subject to interpretation. 

[Josh F]

Unless i am mistaken, that example involves neither accident nor negligence. It will be easier if we start from the moment you find the music disruptive, are you allowed to require them to reduce the sound or stop playing the music? If they do not comply can you use force against them? I think this is the point Phuein was trying to make by saying "aggression" is subject to interpretation. 

Finding music disruptive is an aesthetic, not a moral, argument.  So, no and no.  To "require" would be a euphemism to force, so that is an NAP violation.  I understood the point, in so far as the letters and words made sense when strung together, but I don't accept that aggression is subjective.  UPB is how one determines aggression and I sincerely recommend you check out the book, it is free on this website and might help you better understand the NAP.

And I think another thing worth mentioning: moral philosophy is not about determining if it is okay to punch someone in the face because they spit on your property.  In all cases, PEACEFUL NEGOTIATION is recommended as a first step to solving complex social problems and violent self defense should be reserved only under imminent danger and the breakdown of peaceful negotiations.  

[labmath2]

Finding music disruptive is an aesthetic, not a moral, argument.  So, no and no.  To "require" would be a euphemism to force, so that is an NAP violation.  I understood the point, in so far as the letters and words made sense when strung together, but I don't accept that aggression is subjective.  UPB is how one determines aggression and I sincerely recommend you check out the book, it is free on this website and might help you better understand the NAP.

And I think another thing worth mentioning: moral philosophy is not about determining if it is okay to punch someone in the face because they spit on your property.  In all cases, PEACEFUL NEGOTIATION is recommended as a first step to solving complex social problems and violent self defense should be reserved only under imminent danger and the breakdown of peaceful negotiations.  

The difficulty for me is how you can request compensation for aesthetically bad action.

[powder]

josh is doing a great job of explaining this stuff and I agree with all of his assertions, seems pretty straight forward to me.  

 

labmath, we request and negotiate for compensation all the time in day to day living with family, friends, workmates and neighbors. people who do not honor these simple dispute resolution systems are just ostracized from normal beneficial social and economic interactions, this works very well and people do it all the time.  do you think you should be able to force people at gun point to make good on simple property damage claims?  what kind of relationships do you have with people in your life?  I already have a pretty good idea from previous posts about Phuein's life situation.  

[labmath2]

If, for example, I play music loudly and you find it annoying, but it doesn't damage your person or property you're not entitled to use violence against me.  If you find it makes it hard to sleep and you're losing hours at work, you're entitled in Civil Law to recompense for lost wages.  Personally, I'd encourage you to peacefully negotiate with that person.  

 

If I insult you, and it directly leads to something which damages your property somehow then you're entitled to make the case.  You are NOT entitled to initiate violence.  

 

I prefer not to discuss my personal life, but i will point out the argument as i see it before me, maybe that will help.

If your action does no damage to me or my property, then i cannot use violence against you

X is your action and it does no damage to me

Therefore, i cannot use violence against you.

X=playing loud music. 

 

Now i will rephrase the argument in the second statement form.

 

If your action does no damage to me or my property, then i cannot use violence against you

Playing loud music causes me to loose sleep and loose hours at work (damage to me)

therefore, i am entitled to compensation for the lost wages under civil law.

 

Is this the argument as Josh puts it or am i mistaken?

[Josh F]

I prefer not to discuss my personal life, but i will point out the argument as i see it before me, maybe that will help.

If your action does no damage to me or my property, then i cannot use violence against you

X is your action and it does no damage to me

Therefore, i cannot use violence against you.

X=playing loud music. 

 

Now i will rephrase the argument in the second statement form.

 

If your action does no damage to me or my property, then i cannot use violence against you

Playing loud music causes me to loose sleep and loose hours at work (damage to me)

therefore, i am entitled to compensation for the lost wages under civil law.

 

Is this the argument as Josh puts it or am i mistaken?

 

No, thats a strawman. 

 

If your action threatens or uses violence against me, including my property, I can defend myself.  If your actions inadvertently cause damages, under Civil Law, I am entitled to recompense.  Playing loud music is not a threat against you, nor a direct attack on you and therefor it is not permissible to use violence.  However, it could be argued to inadvertently cause damages, and thus if you can make the case you'd be entitled to arbitrate the dispute.  

The difficulty for me is how you can request compensation for aesthetically bad action.

 

You can request compensation for anything you want, it doesn't mean the other party will provide it, or that a third party arbitrator will support that request.  If you can demonstrate loses, they might.

[labmath2]

I am not sure if you see this but i will point it out for you. 

 

If your action threatens or uses violence against me, including my property, I can defend myself.  If your actions inadvertently cause damages, under Civil Law, I am entitled to recompense.  Playing loud music is not a threat against you, nor a direct attack on you and therefor it is not permissible to use violence.  However, it could be argued to inadvertently cause damages, and thus if you can make the case you'd be entitled to arbitrate the dispute.  

 

You can request compensation for anything you want, it doesn't mean the other party will provide it, or that a third party arbitrator will support that request.  If you can demonstrate loses, they might.

Those statements suggest that this is a grey area that is subject to cultural interpretation. Since in these cases the act is not in question but the justification for compensation which could certainly change based on the general consensus. If you still don;t see how these statements denote possibilities for different outcomes based on the attitude of the population, then i guess you mean something different than i understand by such statements as "make the case" or "if they can demonstrate loses, they might [be compensated]."

[Josh F]

I think what I've said is extremely clear and trying to interject other things is frustrating.  Can you please try and make my own argument for me, so that I know that you're understanding what I said and this isn't about being right, but that you're actually interested in understanding me and getting at the truth.  I highly recommend you read my last post, which does a very good job of articulating a perfect response to this last post you just made.

[Phuein]

I feel we're losing clarity of argument, so I'd like to put my own personal example, as this is indeed a very personal issue for me, and I am not speaking abstractly here, at all.

 

Let's take my case of air-pollution, to clarify an actual proven physical threat and harm to health, for me and others, that is not socially agreed upon as a threat or damage, so I am not socially accepted in retaliating against the damages to my self and property.

 

 

A short drive from where I live, there is a cement mixing factory. This factory causes great air pollution, which is especially [and strategically] released every day, at about 5am. The sea winds blow this pollution directly at me, and I can even smell it, if I'm awake at those hours. 

 

I know that this is harming me, but the local popular (and bribed) "scientific consensus" shrugs this off as unproven. I have phlegm issues, and everyone who lives here has notable chronic coughing. Those "in charge" will not take action about this. This is actually one of the lesser cases of pollution in my country, which says a lot about any chances of fixing this.

 

Even if the NAP would justify me taking action against that factory and people there, my society does not, and this means that the NAP is meaningless in a society where 'aggression' is defined in a way that excludes pollution, to a large extent.

 

There is no universality in accumulative damage cases, even when it comes to human health and death, and even when the request to cease had been made.

 

People living downwind from a factory in the north, are now growing lethal cancers, after being exposed for ten years, or longer. Statistically, something extremely fucked up is going there, but no one will take responsibility for it, and they are helpless. 

 

Threats under the NAP do not require proof of consequence (it's enough to make the threat), and neither should accumulative damages require it! If there is suspicion that repeating behavior may cause harm, and the offender will not stop, then they are trespassing the NAP. Using this logic, it is reasonable to demand a retraction and apology, even after the first occurrence. That is my argument, the same in regards to verbal abuse.

[powder]

that is an absolute bummer Phuein.  I can totally sympathize with that and I would get the heck outta there if I were in your place. Still, you can't change the definition of the NAP to suit your case.  You could start a thread to discuss your problem, how it relates to philosophy?  well,...  

[B1-66ER]

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.

 

 

Really? When was the last time anyone in the military was charged with the crime of "shirking"? UCMJ Article 115 technically refers to it as "malingering" and uses the term "shirking" only as a descriptor. Unless I suspect you're referring to another nations military considering the US military is entirely composed of volunteers.

[Josh F]

I feel we're losing clarity of argument, so I'd like to put my own personal example, as this is indeed a very personal issue for me, and I am not speaking abstractly here, at all.

 

Let's take my case of air-pollution, to clarify an actual proven physical threat and harm to health, for me and others, that is not socially agreed upon as a threat or damage, so I am not socially accepted in retaliating against the damages to my self and property.

 

 

A short drive from where I live, there is a cement mixing factory. This factory causes great air pollution, which is especially [and strategically] released every day, at about 5am. The sea winds blow this pollution directly at me, and I can even smell it, if I'm awake at those hours. 

 

I know that this is harming me, but the local popular (and bribed) "scientific consensus" shrugs this off as unproven. I have phlegm issues, and everyone who lives here has notable chronic coughing. Those "in charge" will not take action about this. This is actually one of the lesser cases of pollution in my country, which says a lot about any chances of fixing this.

 

Even if the NAP would justify me taking action against that factory and people there, my society does not, and this means that the NAP is meaningless in a society where 'aggression' is defined in a way that excludes pollution, to a large extent.

 

There is no universality in accumulative damage cases, even when it comes to human health and death, and even when the request to cease had been made.

 

People living downwind from a factory in the north, are now growing lethal cancers, after being exposed for ten years, or longer. Statistically, something extremely fucked up is going there, but no one will take responsibility for it, and they are helpless. 

 

Threats under the NAP do not require proof of consequence (it's enough to make the threat), and neither should accumulative damages require it! If there is suspicion that repeating behavior may cause harm, and the offender will not stop, then they are trespassing the NAP. Using this logic, it is reasonable to demand a retraction and apology, even after the first occurrence. That is my argument, the same in regards to verbal abuse.

 

You've replaced the word aggression with damages.

 

On the issue of pollution, Stef has a great podcast on how pollution would be dealt with within a free society. Maybe someone here remembers the name and can post a link

[Phuein]

Unless I suspect you're referring to another nations military considering the US military is entirely composed of volunteers.

 

I was referring to the Israeli army.

[B1-66ER]

I was referring to the Israeli army.

 

I suppose I should apologize, I couldn't imagine being pressed into the service of such an overtly evil institution. I survived Iraq by the skin of my nuts with the American war machine so I can empathize. I realize now, prison would have been a lot easier and less costly.

[Phuein]

...I couldn't imagine being pressed into the service of such an overtly evil institution.

 

I think that it is this lack of experience with the modern forms of evil, that makes it hard for most Westerners to define evil with the inclusion of the less obvious threats and assaults. Until there is a persuasive explanation of this reasoning, I suspect that modern cultures will continue to give host to the con-artist-sociopaths, who lie through their teeth, while harming many.