A question regarding non-aggression policy (NAP)

[NickH]

Hello everyone.

I've been watching Stephan's videos on Youtube for a while now and just finished his video on reality where he laid out his non-aggression policy (NAP). I particularly like it since it is a very simple idea that can be very easily described, but I do have an issue with its interpretation, which I thought I'd run by the community here rather than trying to pester the call in show about it.

 

As a disclaimer, I am very mindful of Stephan's speech on nitpickers and wish to strongly declare that I do not intend to con anyone into shooting ping pong balls or performing endless stretching with this post. This question deals with the fundamental interpretation of the foundation of Stephan's philosophy, and how you or I answer this scenario greatly affects what form our worldview takes if we are consistent with it.

 

NAP as stated on the video: The initiation of force by one person upon another is wrong, unless in self-defense.

 

Simple scenario:

Two people (call them Alice and Bob) come to an arrangement where they agree to exchange two things of value (this can be anything from labor, to food, to money or whatever). Alice delivers her good (or pays her money or performs her labor or whatever) to Bob, but Bob, having received Alice's valuables decides not to give Alice what he promised.

 

Alice may find herself in varying degrees of distress depending on how badly she needed the goods Bob offered her, but for the purposes of this scenario and for the sake of simplicity we will just say that Alice is meaningfully hurt or disadvantaged by Bob reneging on his promise.

 

Under NAP, is Alice justified in resorting to force to extract the goods promised to her from Bob?

Or, in other words, is Bob reneging on his promise and thus hurting Alice sufficient in concept for Alice to respond with force in self-defense to claim what was promised to her?

 

What do you think?

 

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This would be theft so proportionate force would be justified. Bob has initiated force in the form of fraud so Alice would be defending herself. 

[dsayers]

Hello. I hope you don't mind if I try and help you be precise with your language. Because how we speak is how we think, and it's better to be accurate when taking on new ideas so as not to misrepresent them. For starters, you're not talking about "Stef's philosophy." Stef could die today and it won't change the fact that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

Next, you said that the NAP states that the initiation of the use of force is wrong, unless in self-defense. Self-defense is not the INITIATION of the use of force, so that caveat is superfluous.

 

Finally, you referenced Alice's need or distress, but these things are not relevant. What you're describing is wrong because Bob has violated his contract, even if it's a drop in the bucket for Alice.

 

If you haven't already, I highly recommend checking out Stef's series called An Introduction to Philosophy. It's long, but well worth it as it will help you to think more rationally and critically to catch mistakes like these and have cleaner conversations. Also, in terms of answering your question, I recommend checking out this video:

 

 

Basically, Bob created a debt to Alice when he violated his contract with her. The amount of the debt is whatever his contract pledged her, plus compensation for whatever effort she has to put into settling that debt. The creation of this debt was in fact Bob's initiation of the use of force even though it took place by way of deliberate inaction, since his contract pledged action. So for Alice to use force to settle this debt would not be the initiation of the use of force.

 

That said, there is a continuum. If the deal was a dollar for a candy bar, then I think for Alice to hold a knife to Bob's neck would be disparity to a level that she was no longer settling the original debt, but in fact creating a new, much larger debt herself. Such an action would not be self-defense, but retaliation, which is in fact the initiation of the use of force. If Bob failed to give her the candy bar and she went and took one off the shelf in his store, that would not be theft, and her action would be justified.

 

I hope this helps and good luck. I appreciate your dedication to such an important topic!

[NickH]

Thank you for the response!

 

 

Hello. I hope you don't mind if I try and help you be precise with your language. Because how we speak is how we think, and it's better to be accurate when taking on new ideas so as not to misrepresent them. For starters, you're not talking about "Stef's philosophy." Stef could die today and it won't change the fact that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

Next, you said that the NAP states that the initiation of the use of force is wrong, unless in self-defense. Self-defense is not the INITIATION of the use of force, so that caveat is superfluous.

Granted in its entirety! Thanks for the clarification, as I didn't intend to imply that NAP is dependent on Stef's existence or change the definition of self-defense.

Also, I am currently moving through Stef's intro to philosophy playlist, though it is quite lengthy so I'll be at it awhile.

 

However, here is where I get hung up:

We accept that it is ethical for a person to use force to secure promises made to them. This is perfectly reasonable and I agree completely.

 

We also accept that a group of people has the same ethical rights and responsibilities as any member of the group; just because there is a group of people that come together, does not mean that simply by being call a "society" the group loses any rights or gains any privileges that any of its individuals have or do not have.

 

Thus it is ethical for a group of people to use force to secure promises made to members of the group or made to everyone in the group.

 

For a person to be a member of a group, that person will usually have to make some sort of promise to the rest of the group members regarding their behavior. This promise can be explicit (as in an employment contract or an oath of citizenship) or implicit (few group members explicitly affirm their allegiance to each and every law and social custom of a group, especially those members born into a group). Also, for reasons of practicality and especially in large groups, a group member who makes this promise is assumed to have made this promise to all members, regardless if they are present or not.

 

Thus it appears to be ethical for a group of people to use force to secure the explicit or implicit promises made by its members to each other.

 

In large groups, members will find it practical to devise some way of appointing leaders. These leaders will be able to make decisions for the group's members as limited by the rules of the group (we usually call these rules a constitution). These leaders are usually also empowered by those rules to use force to secure promises, implicit or explicit, made to members of the group. 

 

So here comes the big question:

Given that all of the above naturally flows from "it is ethical for a person to use force to secure promises made to them," is it not also ethical for a government to use force upon its own citizens to secure its laws, provided that force is provided for by its constitution?

[EclecticIdealist]

NAP - The initiation of the of the use of force is wrong (except in self-defense).

 

Some have opined that unless the use of force has been initiated, self-defense cannot occur. I wish to propose an example for consideration where one could conceivably initiate the use of force as an act of self-defense.

 

Iran wishes to enrich uranium in order to make weapon's grade plutonium and construct one or more nuclear weapons.

 

Which of the following propositions is true?

 

Iran's attempt to enrich uranium is an act of aggression, i.e., the initiation of the use of force, against Israel or its other perceived enemies; therefore, Israel is acting in self-defense when they destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.

 

Iran's attempt to enrich uranium is not an act of aggression; nevertheless, Israel or the US is acting in self defense by initiating the use of force to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.

 

The action of the US or Israel to preemptively destroy the uranium enrichment facilities of Iran is an unjustified act of aggression, i.e. an initiation of the use of force, against Iran, not an act of self-defense.

[dsayers]

For a person to be a member of a group, that person will usually have to make some sort of promise to the rest of the group members regarding their behavior. This promise can be explicit (as in an employment contract or an oath of citizenship) or implicit (few group members explicitly affirm their allegiance to each and every law and social custom of a group, especially those members born into a group). Also, for reasons of practicality and especially in large groups, a group member who makes this promise is assumed to have made this promise to all members, regardless if they are present or not.

I think this paragraph is where you begin to go astray. This is the problem with taking some simple and making it unnecessarily complex. If person A enters into a contract with person B OR persons B, C, and D, there is no fundamental difference. There is no such thing as an implicit contract. If I get onto a bus that you are riding on, I have not promised you nor committed to anything regarding you. It remains true that it would be immoral for me to assault you, but this has nothing to do with my association with you, but rather the fact that the act of assault simultaneously accepts and rejects property rights.

 

is it not also ethical for a government to use force upon its own citizens to secure its laws, provided that force is provided for by its constitution?

This assumes that that government (anthropomorphism aside) owns the individuals and/or that they have consented to what's being enforced. If these things are true, then as with the bus assault scenario above, it's basic property rights that tell you about the relationship, not the coercive labels of "government" and "citizen." Does that make sense?