What is violence and aggression?

[junglecat]

I’ve been digging into the philosophy of Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux and I find this concept of the non-aggression principle- which obviously did not originate from FDR but which is central to the philosophy- to be quite muddy. What does it mean to initiate violence or aggression? I think the idea that it is only the ‘other guy’ that initiates violence is akin to what Girard called, “the romantic lie”

The ‘romantic lie’ is Girard’s idea that our desires and purposes arise from some creative inner depth within ourselves. The truth is that our desires are generally inspired by the desires of others. We want things not because they are inherently desirable but because someone else's desire for them has made them attractive to us.

We see it in advertising where the products are not presented on their merits but as the possessions of attractive or prestigious people. We are invited to enjoy some quality of being that belongs to the person who has the product and not the product itself. Desire is never a straight line between a subject and an object but always has some ‘other’ as it’s model.  Desire is essentially borrowed desire.  

"There is no such thing as ’natural desire’, otherwise it would be instinct.  If desire had a fixed object it couldn’t change and it would be the same as animal instinct. Therefore desire always come from the ‘other’. This other, if he is close enough socially, physically, will necesarily become our rival when we desire his object. Human desire is changeable by its very nature. Beyond the basic things to which instinct or appetite direct us, our wants and our abilities are shaped entirely by imitation of those who surround us and those we admire. This is how we develop our entire cultural repertoire, beginning with the language we speak. We learn because we want to be like those from whom we learn.

Aristotle say humans are the most mimetic of creatures. What Aristotle doesn’t point out is the shadow side this aptitude for imitation, which is the way it leads to rivalry between those who desire the same things. This rivalry will be most intense between those who are most alike in their interests and affections. The paradox is that the closer you are, the more your goals will be the same. This will be true at the highest level, at the intellectual level. If we are close intellectually, we are going to look for the same things and there will be moments when we feel that the other is more successful than we are. In fact, it’s everybody’s tendency to feel that the other is more successful. It’s also everybody’s tendency to feel “I am more successful” or “I should be more successful” but anyway the problem will be there because man is essentially a dynamic individual who wants to occupy the entire stage. This individualism will lead us into competition with the people who are closest to us. Aristotle says tragedy is conflict to the death between people closest to each other. The closer you are to someone, the greater the possibility of conflict given what man is, his goals and his individual imperialism. This is the unspoken truth of social existence that is hidden by the ‘romantic lie’ but revealed in the greatest works of literature."

 

"I offer my hand. You take it. We shake hands.

But if you don’t take my hand and if you put your hand behind your back, I will also put my hand behind my back. In other words, I will reciprocate a friendly action, you will reciprocate it too.

But if there is no good reciprocity there will immediately be a bad one which takes over. And this is what I think the specialists of human relations have not noticed enough. That far from lacking reciprocity, we can not get out of it. But it’s very easy to shift from good reciprocity to bad reciprocity and terribly difficult to shift from bad reciprocity to good reciprocity and I think the problem of mankind is really precisely that.  That whichever reciprocity we have, we are not going to be able to get out of it, it will be a vicious circle into which things will always get worse and worse, because even good reciprocity can become bad by force of repetition.

We are very different from animals in that respect. I think that reciprocity begins with a glance. We look at each other. This is a very striking thing in my view. When you look at animals fighting on TV, even the two goats that hit precisely the center of the forehead. They don’t look at each other. They don’t look at each other before the fight, during the fight, or after the fight. There is a total lack of glance.

This is so true that Kipling had a special theory, which was typical Kipling. He was a genius, but in the Jungle Book there is that story that animals can not stand the glance of man, which is human superiority- it’s not true! If you look a cat in the eyes too long, the cat will be bored, will go to sleep. But men will never go to sleep. They’ll rise to the challenge and they’ll fight. I think it is the good and the bad of man. It’s inescapable. We are terribly mimetic, and being mimetic we are inevitably open to conflict.

What is vengeance? Vengeance is doing what the other guy does, always the same thing. But it’s the ultimate in bad reciprocity. To stop it by killing the opponent. And all men know how to do that and only men (and women) know how to do that because animals don’t have intra-specific murder. So when people say, “Humans are violent, animals are much less violent”- they are right. If we didn’t have culture, in the human sense, there would be no humanity. Humanity would have destroyed itself at birth. When the mimetic power rose in the relationship between animals- and we know that it rises, and we know it today scientifically through the mirror neurons. The higher you get, the more mirrored neurons you have and the more mirrored neurons you have (with man) the more you do the same thing. But this ‘doing the same thing’ includes enough violence to kill. And we call it vengeance. The human species is the only one which threatens it’s own existence from birth.”

René Girard
 

 

[csekavec]

What does it mean to initiate violence or aggression?

The statement is this: that it is immoral to initiate physical force. 

 

The idea has no claim that only 'the other guy' initiates. No party, one party, or all parties may initiate. The only thing the NAP has to say about it is to assert that it is wrong.

 

"There is no such thing as ’natural desire’,

 

That a person gets nutrition from food and not from rocks is a natural desire.  

 

Further, if all comes from the other, whence comes desire? Such circularity illustrates the fallacy in the claim. I won't go on. 

 

Aristotle say humans are the most mimetic of creatures.

.....

Aristotle says tragedy is conflict to the death between people closest to each other. 

 

 

Aristotle's comments were pertaining to ART. If you wish to extrapolate from there, fine. But you can't appeal to him as though he were making your argument. He was making observations about aesthetics and in particular, the dramatic and rhetorical style. 

 

 

René Girard

Is this you? Or are you attributing a quotation?

[junglecat]

 

 

The statement is this: that it is immoral to initiate physical force. 

 

The idea has no claim that only 'the other guy' initiates. No party, one party, or all parties may initiate. The only thing the NAP has to say about it is to assert that it is wrong.

 

 

 

That a person gets nutrition from food and not from rocks is a natural desire.  

 

Further, if all comes from the other, whence comes desire? Such circularity illustrates the fallacy in the claim. I won't go on. 

 

 

Aristotle's comments were pertaining to ART. If you wish to extrapolate from there, fine. But you can't appeal to him as though he were making your argument. He was making observations about aesthetics and in particular, the dramatic and rhetorical style. 

 

 

 

Is this you? Or are you attributing a quotation?

 

And my question to you is when have you ever seen a use of force that was not predicated on some anterior crisis or use of force?

 

How do you distinguish what you believe to be 'natural desire' from instinct?

 

How does the circularity of mimetic desire (borrowed desire) illustrate it is fallacious?

 

The words in quotations are Girard's, not my own.

[csekavec]

No, no, no. No straw men. 

 

I was quite specific in what I said. I'm not interested in loose goose word games. 

[junglecat]

No, no, no. No straw men. 

 

I was quite specific in what I said. I'm not interested in loose goose word games. 

What is the straw man here?

[dsayers]

I’ve been digging into the philosophy of Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux and I find this concept of the non-aggression principle- which obviously did not originate from FDR but which is central to the philosophy- to be quite muddy. What does it mean to initiate violence or aggression? I think the idea that it is only the ‘other guy’ that initiates violence is akin to what Girard called, “the romantic lie”

 

The ‘romantic lie’ is Girard’s

I stopped reading at that point. Philosophy is objective. Anything that can be described as belonging to somebody is not philosophy. From there you twice bring up "Girard." I don't know who that is or why you feel what they say is the end all be all.

 

In order to know what violence is and/or how to determine who INITIATED the use of force, you must first understand property rights, which is derived from self-ownership. Here's a good place to start:

 

 

Let us know if it's still unclear and where/how and maybe we can have a rational discussion without poisoning the well and appeals to authority.

[junglecat]

I stopped reading at that point. Philosophy is objective. Anything that can be described as belonging to somebody is not philosophy. From there you twice bring up "Girard." I don't know who that is or why you feel what they say is the end all be all.

 

In order to know what violence is and/or how to determine who INITIATED the use of force, you must first understand property rights, which is derived from self-ownership. Here's a good place to start:

 

 

Let us know if it's still unclear and where/how and maybe we can have a rational discussion without poisoning the well and appeals to authority.

An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.

 

I did not argue anything was true because René Girard said it. I quoted him.

 

The concept of 'self-ownership' is a bit like putting legs on a snake, as the old saying goes. It's superfluous and says nothing of the fact that nobody lives in a vacuum. You have parents. You were their child and you are their son. You may have children. They will be your children. We know ourselves in relation to those around us.

[junglecat]

I stopped reading at that point. Philosophy is objective. Anything that can be described as belonging to somebody is not philosophy. From there you twice bring up "Girard." I don't know who that is or why you feel what they say is the end all be all.

 

In order to know what violence is and/or how to determine who INITIATED the use of force, you must first understand property rights, which is derived from self-ownership. Here's a good place to start:

 

 

Let us know if it's still unclear and where/how and maybe we can have a rational discussion without poisoning the well and appeals to authority.

Once violence is initiated then retaliatory violence in self defense is righteous. The problem I see is that, almost without fail, both parties will believe it was the other party who initiated the violence/aggression.

 

For instance, you accused me of the logical fallacy, 'appeal to authority'.  You say I am poisoning the well. You believe me to be initiating a kind of aggression in this poisoning. You therefore feel justified in your accusation.

 

I believe I am not committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I did not argue that my position was right because René Girard said so. I used his quote as an illustration. I view your accusation as a form of aggression.

 

Aggression tends to escalate. Physical violence never comes clear out of the blue. It begins with aggression. A misunderstanding, offense taken, veiled insults, open insults, 'blocking', 'bad reputation' points.  My point is that if you listen to both sides of a story as an outside observer to almost any conflict you will find each party to believe it was the other who initiated the aggression. Confining the definition of violence only to physical violence and theft is no help either. There are plenty of war tactics that do not involve any physical contact or theft but which can leave an enemy injured all the same. 

[dsayers]

The concept of 'self-ownership' is a bit like putting legs on a snake, as the old saying goes. It's superfluous and says nothing of the fact that nobody lives in a vacuum. You have parents. You were their child and you are their son. You may have children. They will be your children. We know ourselves in relation to those around us.

Assertion followed by deflection and obfuscation.

 

You say I am poisoning the well. You believe me to be initiating a kind of aggression in this poisoning.

Strawman and VERY irresponsible to accuse me of claiming aggression where there is none.

 

You asked what is violence and aggression. I said that in order to be able to understand this, you must first understand property rights, which stems from self-ownership. Then you said such things are useless because the chain of causality might be lied about and even demonstrated that you have no idea what aggression means. It's like saying you don't need a microscope because what you're trying to see is too small for the human eye. Madness!

 

Once you understand self-ownership and property rights, who was the first to engage in a behavior that was binding upon another without their consent is clear. Enjoy your continued obfuscation. I tried.

[junglecat]

Assertion followed by deflection and obfuscation.

 

Strawman and VERY irresponsible to accuse me of claiming aggression where there is none.

 

You asked what is violence and aggression. I said that in order to be able to understand this, you must first understand property rights, which stems from self-ownership. Then you said such things are useless because the chain of causality might be lied about and even demonstrated that you have no idea what aggression means. It's like saying you don't need a microscope because what you're trying to see is too small for the human eye. Madness!

 

Once you understand self-ownership and property rights, who was the first to engage in a behavior that was binding upon another without their consent is clear. Enjoy your continued obfuscation. I tried.

First we need to determine if I was making an argument from authority. Where did I say 'because Girard says this, it is right'?  I did not. Your accusation was false.

[EclecticIdealist]

The only necessary thing is the realization of self-determination. You are either at liberty to direct your actions (sovereign) or you are not (subservient/slave). Everything else comes from this ideal. A society that is formed on the basis of Universal Individual Sovereignty or Liberty must of necessity support universal, individual property rights as well as the non-aggression principle. The same cannot be said of a society which holds universal, individual property rights as its supreme virtue.

 

Property is derived from the mutual agreement to respect the sovereignty of others. It is why Liberty, not property, must be the supreme virtue for those desirous of liberty and peace. If property were the supreme virtue or ideal to found government upon, then virtually any kind of society that respects property rights could be considered moral, including absolutely despotic societies which approve of and support rape, slavery, and murder; since if a person may be another's property, then whatever their owner wishes to do with their property must be considered moral.

 

Those who suggest that Universal Individual Property Ownership includes self-ownership must establish the rational basis of self-ownership. When does self-ownership begin? Most would argue that the parents, or at least the woman, owns the embryo or fetus which gestates in her body. At what point does ownership transfer from the woman to the fetus or child? If it occurs at birth, what is the basis of such transfer of ownership? How is the woman compensated for the loss/transfer of ownership? If the assertion is that anything that is autonomous owns itself, then one has just conceded that Universal Individual Sovereignty is the basis of property rights.

[junglecat]

The only necessary thing is the realization of self-determination. You are either at liberty to direct your actions (sovereign) or you are not (subservient/slave). Everything else comes from this ideal. A society that is formed on the basis of Universal Individual Sovereignty or Liberty must of necessity support universal, individual property rights as well as the non-aggression principle. The same cannot be said of a society which holds universal, individual property rights as its supreme virtue.

 

Property is derived from the mutual agreement to respect the sovereignty of others. It is why Liberty, not property, must be the supreme virtue for those desirous of liberty and peace. If property were the supreme virtue or ideal to found government upon, then virtually any kind of society that respects property rights could be considered moral, including absolutely despotic societies which approve of and support rape, slavery, and murder; since if a person may be another's property, then whatever their owner wishes to do with their property must be considered moral.

 

Those who suggest that Universal Individual Property Ownership includes self-ownership must establish the rational basis of self-ownership. When does self-ownership begin? Most would argue that the parents, or at least the woman, owns the embryo or fetus which gestates in her body. At what point does ownership transfer from the woman to the fetus or child? If it occurs at birth, what is the basis of such transfer of ownership? How is the woman compensated for the loss/transfer of ownership? If the assertion is that anything that is autonomous owns itself, then one has just conceded that Universal Individual Sovereignty is the basis of property rights.

Yes, it does boil down to the issue of autonomy. Absolute autonomy doesn't exist in the human realm. We are the products of our parents and society. Nobody would want to live a completely autonomous life even if it were possible. Life is made up of human interactions. The worst punishment we can inflict on someone is to take these away and put them in solitary confinement. 

 

When it comes to violence and aggression this idea of absolute autonomy is just a fuzzy and indistinct. The non-aggression principle talks about the initiation of force/aggression/violence. Where does this begin? Does it begin at physical violence? When someone strikes another with intent to harm? What about war tactics such as siege? Would anyone consider it moral to do everything short of physical violence to provoke another?

[dsayers]

First we need to determine if I was making an argument from authority. Where did I say 'because Girard says this, it is right'?  I did not. Your accusation was false.

If you will not address accusing me of calling something aggressive that wasn't, I won't dignify your attempt to deflect from every other legitimate challenge I've presented you with.

[EclecticIdealist]

Yes, it does boil down to the issue of autonomy. Absolute autonomy doesn't exist in the human realm. We are the products of our parents and society. Nobody would want to live a completely autonomous life even if it were possible. Life is made up of human interactions. The worst punishment we can inflict on someone is to take these away and put them in solitary confinement.

You have a strange notion about autonomy.  Autonomy is not about isolation, it is about self-direction, self-government, self-rule. It is liberty as opposed to artificial (i.e. man-made/man-caused/man-directed) constraint, i.e. tyranny and slavery.

 

When it comes to violence and aggression this idea of absolute autonomy is just a fuzzy and indistinct. The non-aggression principle talks about the initiation of force/aggression/violence. Where does this begin? Does it begin at physical violence? When someone strikes another with intent to harm? What about war tactics such as siege? Would anyone consider it moral to do everything short of physical violence to provoke another?

Violence and aggression are neither fuzzy nor indistinct unless one is intentionally making them so. You desire to know the beginning of physical violence? It is when force is utilized to impose one's will upon another. The beginning of violence is not the same thing as the origin or cause of violence, but that's not what you asked.

 

You ask if "siege tactics" could constitute physical violence? Possibly. An act of aggression? Without question. Are you utilizing the threat of force or violence to confine a person to a small geographical space, or to limit their ability to trade freely with others, or to gather freely available resources from their environment? If you are, it is an act of aggression. If you actually implement the threatened force, that would constitute violence.

 

If you are simply telling people they must not do something without any threat of consequences, and without enacting any consequences, that's not a siege and it's not the imposition of one's will upon another, through violence or even the threat of violence, and therefore, it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle. It's an expression of one's desires perhaps, but nothing more.

 

Would anyone consider it moral to engage in non-violent aggression against another in order to provoke another (to do what)? I'm sure there are some who would, and others who would not. I certainly would not. Threats of violence are acts of aggression and violate the NAP. I honestly cannot understand what you find so difficult about the NAP.

[junglecat]

If you will not address accusing me of calling something aggressive that wasn't, I won't dignify your attempt to deflect from every other legitimate challenge I've presented you with.

I'm not deflecting. I gave you an immediate example of what I am trying to convey to you:

 

"For instance, you accused me of the logical fallacy, 'appeal to authority'.  You say I am poisoning the well. You believe me to be initiating a kind of aggression in this poisoning. You therefore feel justified in your accusation.

 

I believe I am not committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I did not argue that my position was right because René Girard said so. I used his quote as an illustration. I view your accusation as a form of aggression."

 

Yes, I do view your accusation as a type of aggression. I do so because your accusation was false. In no way did I make an appeal to authority by quoting Girard.  Now, you could have easily made a mistake and are too proud to admit it. This in itself leads to a further escalation. Do you see what I mean? Who and how aggression is initiated is a very sticky affair. Try to sort it out and it's like putting tar in one hand, feathers in the other. Smack them together and sort it all out.

But this was only an example. I am not thin skinned enough to actually take offense at what you say. I have had dealings with you before and I know how you react. I am not surprised in the least.

[Will Torbald]

 

When it comes to violence and aggression this idea of absolute autonomy is just a fuzzy and indistinct. The non-aggression principle talks about the initiation of force/aggression/violence. Where does this begin? Does it begin at physical violence? When someone strikes another with intent to harm? What about war tactics such as siege? Would anyone consider it moral to do everything short of physical violence to provoke another?

For reasons like these my approach to the NAP is that it is only functional as a collective principle, not between individuals. It is a guidance for a societal organization without oppressing individuals by the force of a central authority. It's like how there are physical theories that work well for the big space stuff, and theories foe the small quantum stuff - and if you try to use the theory of the small for the big, or the big for the small, it doesn't work. If you try to use the NAP to see who was in the wrong in a bar fight or a brawl somewhere you will get that self righteous justification from both sides. It only works well for the big stuff, like governments and societies, not average Joe on the street.

[junglecat]

You have a strange notion about autonomy.  Autonomy is not about isolation, it is about self-direction, self-government, self-rule. It is liberty as opposed to artificial (i.e. man-made/man-caused/man-directed) constraint, i.e. tyranny and slavery.

 

Violence and aggression are neither fuzzy nor indistinct unless one is intentionally making them so. You desire to know the beginning of physical violence? It is when force is utilized to impose one's will upon another. The beginning of violence is not the same thing as the origin or cause of violence, but that's not what you asked.

 

You ask if "siege tactics" could constitute physical violence? Possibly. An act of aggression? Without question. Are you utilizing force or the threat of force to confine a person to a small geographical space, or to limit their ability to trade freely with others, or to gather freely available resources from their environment? If you are, it is an act of aggression.

 

If you are simply telling people they must not do something without any threat of consequences, and without enacting any consequences, that's not a siege and it's not the imposition of one's will upon another, through violence or even the threat of violence, and therefore, it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle. It's an expression of one's desires perhaps, but nothing more.

 

Would anyone consider it moral to engage in non-violent aggression against another in order to provoke another (to do what)? I'm sure there are some who would, and others who would not. I certainly would not. Threats of violence are acts of aggression and violate the NAP. I honestly cannot understand what you find so difficult about the NAP.

Merriam-Webster:

 

the state of existing or acting separately from others

the power or right of a country, group, etc., to govern itself

 

Cambridge:

 

The right of a group of people to govern itself or to organize its own activities.

 

I stand by my statement under either meanings. Absolute autonomy doesn't exist.

I didn't say violence and aggression are fuzzy, although they certainly can be. I said that who initiates aggression/violence is fuzzy. You would be very hard pressed to find any instances where both parties did not feel the aggression came from the other guy. So might usually end up right and the winners write the history books. They demonize their enemy and airbrush out their own misdeeds.

 

"Non-violent aggression"- that's a good one. That's like dry water.  People and states use aggression and violence to provoke others to act violently, to play the game of tit for tat. This is obvious to anyone who observes world politics and marital relations. Of course, neither side will ever admit this is the case.

[junglecat]

For reasons like these my approach to the NAP is that it is only functional as a collective principle, not between individuals. It is a guidance for a societal organization without oppressing individuals by the force of a central authority. It's like how there are physical theories that work well for the big space stuff, and theories foe the small quantum stuff - and if you try to use the theory of the small for the big, or the big for the small, it doesn't work. If you try to use the NAP to see who was in the wrong in a bar fight or a brawl somewhere you will get that self righteous justification from both sides. It only works well for the big stuff, like governments and societies, not average Joe on the street.

I disagree. The only place it works is in the realm of fantasy. You say it is only applicable for governments and societies at large. Our record of history shows that the world is getting progressively more violent. That is as big a picture as you can draw. And the majority of the killing has been after the Enlightenment.

 

The non-aggression principle does not work because it refuses to see mankind as it is.  The non aggression principle comes from a Voltairian view of the world. Think about Candide. The perfect society doesn't exist. Voltaire had to invent it. It's easy to criticize the world from a fantasy position. It's much harder to view it as it is. Still more difficult to apply the rules for the kingdom of heaven that Jesus lays out in the gospels.

[Will Torbald]

I disagree. The only place it works is in the realm of fantasy. You say it is only applicable for governments and societies at large. Our record of history shows that the world is getting progressively more violent. That is as big a picture as you can draw. And the majority of the killing has been after the Enlightenment.

 

The non-aggression principle does not work because it refuses to see mankind as it is. The non aggression principle comes from a Voltairian view of the world. Think about Candide. The perfect society doesn't exist. Voltaire had to invent it. It's easy to criticize the world from a fantasy position. It's much harder to view it as it is. Still more difficult to apply the rules for the kingdom of heaven that Jesus lays out in the gospels.

Well, maybe. By NAP I don't mean that the government won't use force, but that it won't initiate it. The justice system is largely based on the idea that the one who assaults is guilty and worthy of punishment, or that the person defending himself is righteous in his pushback. So that's basically a NAP position taken at scale. Another idea is not having income tax, and funding the government through tariffs, lotteries, or donations. So it's not that violence won't be used, but that violence isn't used to force people to comply like with tyrannical regimes, but to use it for collective defense.

[junglecat]

Well, maybe. By NAP I don't mean that the government won't use force, but that it won't initiate it. The justice system is largely based on the idea that the one who assaults is guilty and worthy of punishment, or that the person defending himself is righteous in his pushback. So that's basically a NAP position taken at scale. Another idea is not having income tax, and funding the government through tariffs, lotteries, or donations. So it's not that violence won't be used, but that violence isn't used to force people to comply like with tyrannical regimes, but to use it for collective defense.

Oh, I know what you mean. Yes, NAP is about governments not initiating force. The problem is that all the biggest governments initiate violence all over the world. The majority of force in the world INITIATES violence. I am an American. My government is the latest, greatest abuser of this principle. But there was Great Britain, France, Rome, Egypt, etc.   And your point about taxes-  where is this principle taken up in regards to taxes in the 'enlightened' western world?

[Guest Gee]

I think the dirty little secret of libertarians is they have not precisly defined violence or force.

[dsayers]

I think the dirty little secret of libertarians is they have not precisly defined violence or force.

Assertion, generality, and false.

 

To me, violence is the initiation of the use of force. Force in the context of interpersonal behaviors is to bind somebody without their consent.

 

@junglecat: You see things as fuzzy because you need them to be emotionally. Which is why you accuse people of being aggressive and/or accusing you of being aggressive.

[EclecticIdealist]

I stand by my statement under either meanings. Absolute autonomy doesn't exist.

Standing by your statement is not an argument. If you are merely asserting that absolute autonomy doesn't exist for anyone living under any current governmental system, then you'll find no disagreement from me with such a claim. If you're asserting something else, please elucidate further.

 

I didn't say violence and aggression are fuzzy, although they certainly can be. I said that who initiates aggression/violence is fuzzy. You would be very hard pressed to find any instances where both parties did not feel the aggression came from the other guy. So might usually end up right and the winners write the history books. They demonize their enemy and airbrush out their own misdeeds.

I agree that many who are the initial aggressors will claim to be the victim of aggression, and in some cases, some will claim to be victims of aggression that is merely perceived, not actual. Nevertheless, in most instances of conflict, there is an escalation to the threat of violence, or actual violence. In such cases, there is usually a clear initiator to impartial witnesses. I will concede that impartial witnesses do not always exist.

 

"Non-violent aggression"- that's a good one. That's like dry water.  People and states use aggression and violence to provoke others to act violently, to play the game of tit for tat. This is obvious to anyone who observes world politics and marital relations. Of course, neither side will ever admit this is the case.

Non-violent aggression is the threat of violence, not actual violence. It's a legitimate distinction. To suggest neither side will ever admit to such behavior is speaking only to your own experience. I happen to know otherwise having alternatively admitted to being the instigator of aggression as well as the recipient of such instigation admitted by another.

[junglecat]

I think the dirty little secret of libertarians is they have not precisly defined violence or force.

There is some of that for sure, as in how much aggression constitutes an initiation of force. I think it's more a refusal to see the organic nature of human interaction. For instance, Girard's example of the handshake. It's a failure to see that initiation of force starts with a glance. There can be no initiation of force in the libertarian perspective without a bad mimesis in the Girardian perspective. There is no break between the two.

[Guest Gee]

Assertion, generality, and false.

 

To me, violence is the initiation of the use of force. Force in the context of interpersonal behaviors is to bind somebody without their consent.

 

But how do you know?

[dsayers]

But how do you know?

Moving the goalposts.

[EclecticIdealist]

There is some of that for sure, as in how much aggression constitutes an initiation of force. I think it's more a refusal to see the organic nature of human interaction. For instance, Girard's example of the handshake. It's a failure to see that initiation of force starts with a glance. There can be no initiation of force in the libertarian perspective without a bad mimesis in the Girardian perspective. There is no break between the two.

Initiation of force does not start with a glance, although it may have its origins there. Aggression may start with a glance that is misperceived, or with the sin of coveting which is what Girard's memetic theory is really all about. The solution is to recognize the seeds of aggression (coveting) and to circumvent it by adopting a different perspective and mindset. Eliminate the coveting and you eliminate the seeds of aggression. This can be accomplished either with the realization that one only wants it because the other has it and that the desire for it is not internally sourced but externally sourced; or alternatively to recognize that what one actually wants (the satisfaction of one's needs and desires can better be accomplished through cooperation rather than competition, a positive sum, value adding, abundance view of economics rather than the zero sum or negative sum, scarcity view of economics. In short, the solution is to recognize the error of informing one's desires through memesis and looking inward instead of outward for one's desires.

[Guest Gee]

Moving the goalposts.

 

Nah man, just having fun. You started with "to me" (subjective) and presented a definition which must make an EMT repsonding to an unconcious person immoral (not precise).

 

Or you could say a parent is immoral (do babies give consent?)

So then babies have to be moved to a different moral catagory?

And then we're Walter Block arguing it is moral to hit children or some mad man arguing children are property.

 

Just leave the difinition murky and hope no one pays to much attention, bro.

[junglecat]

Initiation of force does not start with a glance, although it may have its origins there. Aggression may start with a glance that is misperceived, or with the sin of coveting which is what Girard's memetic theory is really all about. The solution is to recognize the seeds of aggression (coveting) and to circumvent it by adopting a different perspective and mindset. Eliminate the coveting and you eliminate the seeds of aggression. This can be accomplished either with the realization that one only wants it because the other has it and that the desire for it is not internally sourced but externally sourced; or alternatively to recognize that what one actually wants (the satisfaction of one's needs and desires can better be accomplished through cooperation rather than competition, a positive sum, value adding, abundance view of economics rather than the zero sum or negative sum, scarcity view of economics. In short, the solution is to recognize the error of informing one's desires through memesis and looking inward instead of outward for one's desires.

I've noticed you tend to do this, deny then immediately confirm.

 

"Initiation of force does not start with a glance, although it may have its origins there."

 

Hello???

 

Of course the other guy inevitably feel that what you did was 'misperceived' as aggression.  You talk about 'internally sourced desire'. There is no such thing. That belief is the romantic lie. Imitation is unavoidable. The only distinction we can make is between internal and external mediation. Internal mediation is where your model is close to you and therefore easily leads to rivalry. In external mediation the model is too far from you to be a rival.

[dsayers]

Nah man, just having fun. You started with "to me" (subjective) and presented a definition which must make an EMT repsonding to an unconcious person immoral (not precise).

 

Or you could say a parent is immoral (do babies give consent?)

So then babies have to be moved to a different moral catagory?

And then we're Walter Block arguing it is moral to hit children or some mad man arguing children are property.

 

Just leave the difinition murky and hope no one pays to much attention, bro.

Backpedaling and personalizing. If you have challenges to offer, then offer them. This passive-aggressive behavior isn't productive.

 

An unconscious person cannot consent. However, it is reasonable to assume that if they could, they would. This is implied consent and is valid.

 

Of course babies are in a separate moral category.

[junglecat]

Standing by your statement is not an argument. If you are merely asserting that absolute autonomy doesn't exist for anyone living under any current governmental system, then you'll find no disagreement from me with such a claim. If you're asserting something else, please elucidate further.

 

I agree that many who are the initial aggressors will claim to be the victim of aggression, and in some cases, some will claim to be victims of aggression that is merely perceived, not actual. Nevertheless, in most instances of conflict, there is an escalation to the threat of violence, or actual violence. In such cases, there is usually a clear initiator to impartial witnesses. I will concede that impartial witnesses do not always exist.

 

Non-violent aggression is the threat of violence, not actual violence. It's a legitimate distinction. To suggest neither side will ever admit to such behavior is speaking only to your own experience. I happen to know otherwise having alternatively admitted to being the instigator of aggression as well as the recipient of such instigation admitted by another.

Standing by my statement is the conclusion of an argument after I pasted the dictionary definitions. Context!

 

Impartial witnesses rarely exist. In the absolute they never exist.

 

Ok, so you define non-violent aggression as the mere threat of violence.  And you're right. Some may admit to initiating aggression/violence but the norm is to not admit. The big picture of history demonstrates this is the fact.

[EclecticIdealist]

I've noticed you tend to do this, deny then immediately confirm.

 

"Initiation of force does not start with a glance, although it may have its origins there."

 

Hello???

It seems you're not understanding I am attempting to make a distinction between when something begins and what the origins of something are. For example, the origins of the initiation of physical violence aren't punching and kicking. The origins are feelings of wanting what another has or mis-perceiving a non-existent aggression or threat of violence. Physical violence begins when the punch is thrown or the leg is kicked, or whatever other physical action takes place which acts upon the desire.

 

Of course the other guy inevitably feels that what you did was 'misperceived' as aggression.

That makes no sense at all. What one person does (or even does not do) might be misperceived by another as aggression. It is the misperception of non-existent aggression or coveting what another has which leads to aggression.

 

You talk about 'internally sourced desire'. There is no such thing. That belief is the romantic lie.

You (and Girard) are wrong about that. There are many such desires that are not mimetic in origin.  Supposing that all desire is mimetic in origin is just as much an error as supposing that no desires are mimetic in origin. If something I see, hear, smell, taste or feel brings me pleasure, it is not because I see, hear, smell, taste, or feel someone else enjoying it. Once I experience the pleasure, I will want to experience it again... such is the nature of the experience of pleasure. I will naturally desire that which I find brings me pleasure, regardless of whether anyone else appears to desire it or enjoy it.

 

Imitation is unavoidable. The only distinction we can make is between internal and external mediation. Internal mediation is where your model is close to you and therefore easily leads to rivalry. In external mediation the model is too far from you to be a rival.

This is not to suggest that imitation isn't a very powerful, or even a dominant influence on our desires. It's simply not the only one, and it may not be the dominant influence for all. Furthermore, recognition of and rejection of the imitation of desires of others short-circuits the tendency toward covetous and allows other, internally sourced mechanisms to play a greater role in one's desires... (I enjoy _____ music because it appeals to me, not because it appeals to those who are powerful or influential, or wealthy, or whomever I might admire for their abilities or accomplishments.  I desire _______ sort of house because of how I feel in such a place.  I enjoy ______ food because it appeals to my particular tastes, not because such an such a person say I ought to. I enjoy doing and desire to do _______ not because ______ does it, but because I enjoy how it feels to do it and the results of having done it.  etc. ) Such desires do not generally originate conflict because there is no rivalry or competition.

[Mister Mister]

just because there are gray areas with regards to applying the NAP, such as abortion, selling heroin to a 12 year old, shooting a kid with a fake gun, property disputes, pollution, and so on, doesn't mean it isn't a valid principle to begin with.  but in 95-99% of human disputes, it is actually very clear.  nitpicking over whether the duckbilled platypus is a bird or a mammal or neither, is fun and kinda interesting, but not that important to biology as a whole, and not a reason to throw out the categories of bird and mammal altogether.

[shirgall]

just because there are gray areas with regards to applying the NAP, such as abortion, selling heroin to a 12 year old, shooting a kid with a fake gun, property disputes, pollution, and so on, doesn't mean it isn't a valid principle to begin with.  but in 95-99% of human disputes, it is actually very clear.  nitpicking over whether the duckbilled platypus is a bird or a mammal or neither, is fun and kinda interesting, but not that important to biology as a whole, and not a reason to throw out the categories of bird and mammal altogether.

 

Indeed, the NAP is a valid principle, but in and of itself is only one of a set of principles necessary for a reasonable existence. Among the other principles are individuals being proprietors of their own existence, private property, voluntary relationships, and informed consent. That is a start towards addressing the "gray areas".

[Guest Gee]

Backpedaling and personalizing. If you have challenges to offer, then offer them. This passive-aggressive behavior isn't productive.

 

An unconscious person cannot consent. However, it is reasonable to assume that if they could, they would. This is implied consent and is valid.

 

Of course babies are in a separate moral category.

 

X and Y.

 

So you're saying if there is a reasonable expectation of an action transitioning a person to a preferable state then it is not violence or force?

 

But this can't be the definition because it doesn't apply to voting, right?