What is NAP and Initiation of Force?

[M.2]

What is the Initiation of Force? And what is wrong with it?

Philosophy is like theoretical physics, and so whatever works in philosophy, may not work in real life. I have a few honest questions about the NAP.

1. Who started WW1?
2. Who started WW2?
3. Who started the Arab-Israeli conflict?
4. Can a policeman live according to NAP?
5. Is a civil duel ok?
6. Is it possible to initiate force verbally? Is so, where is the line between threat and taunt?
7. Supposedly the state initiates force daily on you. Is it still true if you remain under that state even though you could escape to Siberia?
8. If someone accidentally steps on your land, do you have the moral right to shoot them?
9. At what age does a child become able to violate the NAP?
10. How much can you escalate if someone initiates the use of force against you? Ex: If someone cuts your finger off, can you take his house in retaliation?

[barn]

Hi Op, (Mishi2)

Certainly I would be interested to know your thought processes and definitions describing NAP, so I could gauge your standing.

If that's what you thought of doing and about to add more words to the thread, even better.

Barnsley

[Siegfried von Walheim]

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

What is the Initiation of Force? And what is wrong with it?

"Gimme your money or I'll shoot you!" Theft is wrong because it violets personal property. Initiation of Force is being the one doing the violating. It is being the guy who starts the fight.

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Philosophy is like theoretical physics, and so whatever works in philosophy, may not work in real life. I have a few honest questions about the NAP.

1. Who started WW1?

Chain reaction that begun with the Russian intervention of Austria's punitive war with the Serbians. Therefore either the Austrians for invading Serbia, or Russia for getting involved in their business. 

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Who started WW2?

The Third Empire when it invaded Poland.

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. Who started the Arab-Israeli conflict?

The Jews for colonizing Arab land.

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Can a policeman live according to NAP?

Yes. His job is, theoretically, to enforce the NAP by arresting violators. 

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

5. Is a civil duel ok?

Yes. Both sides are consenting to using force against one another.

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

6. Is it possible to initiate force verbally? Is so, where is the line between threat and taunt?

Only by threatening to kill or harm someone, either physically, financially, or socially. Obvious the last part has the most ambiguity but I think starting false rumors counts as violating the NAP.

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

7. Supposedly the state initiates force daily on you. Is it still true if you remain under that state even though you could escape to Siberia?

Yes. The State unjustly stole the land from the pioneers that settled it centuries ago. 

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

8. If someone accidentally steps on your land, do you have the moral right to shoot them?

Only if they are wearing a military uniform of an enemy country and appear very poised to invade and kill me. Otherwise unless there is an obvious intent to attack me or steal from me, of course not. Escalating beyond what is appropriate is also morally wrong.

If someone accidentally stepped on my land, who cares unless he is damaging something or I hate him and explicitly told him to F off. In either case demanding an apology or repayment of the lost value is more appropriate.

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

9. At what age does a child become able to violate the NAP?

The age of reason, whenever that is.

Quote

10. How much can you escalate if someone initiates the use of force against you? Ex: If someone cuts your finger off, can you take his house in retaliation?

As much as the violater is willing to escalate. If he points a gun at me, I can shoot him. If he punches me, I can punch him twice (or until he stops punching me). If he accidentally steps on my hypothetical garden a small fine is enough. 

Punishment beyond reason is immoral. 

[Boss]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

What is the Initiation of Force? And what is wrong with it?

Philosophy is like theoretical physics, and so whatever works in philosophy, may not work in real life. I have a few honest questions about the NAP.

1. Who started WW1?
2. Who started WW2?
3. Who started the Arab-Israeli conflict?
4. Can a policeman live according to NAP?
5. Is a civil duel ok?
6. Is it possible to initiate force verbally? Is so, where is the line between threat and taunt?
7. Supposedly the state initiates force daily on you. Is it still true if you remain under that state even though you could escape to Siberia?
8. If someone accidentally steps on your land, do you have the moral right to shoot them?
9. At what age does a child become able to violate the NAP?
10. How much can you escalate if someone initiates the use of force against you? Ex: If someone cuts your finger off, can you take his house in retaliation?

This is my current understanding.

The NAP is the argument that the initiation of force(meaning to make someone do something against their will) is immoral. It is proven through UPB.

1,2,3. It was individuals who violated the NAP 
4. Anyone who wants to be moral can live to the NAP
5. Not sure what you mean exactly with civil dual. If it involves making someone do something against their will then it is immoral

6. Yes, For example, verbal threats while flashing his gun on his waist
7. someone who initiates the use of force daily is only further validating their immoral ways.
8. "accidentally steps on land" doesn't grant someone the right to shoot them. Just like how someone accidentally stepping on your toes wouldn't. However, If someone grabs you against your will and start stomping on your toes legs body head whatever, and the way to get away is to shoot the person. You should stop their immoral behavior by shooting the person
9. As soon as that child is consciously able to initiate the use of force.
10. If someone cuts off your finger, they have violated the NAP and is immoral. Cutting off a finger is taking away the person's physical property. Thus, I believe he can take the person's property to mitigate some of the damages done. 

My question to you is
What do you feel "works in philosophy, may not work in real life"?
what got you into wanting to learn about the NAP and the initiation of force and to ask these questions?

Thanks for the questions btw I love testing my current understandings 

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

What is the Initiation of Force? And what is wrong with it?

Philosophy is like theoretical physics, and so whatever works in philosophy, may not work in real life. I have a few honest questions about the NAP.

1. Who started WW1?
2. Who started WW2?
3. Who started the Arab-Israeli conflict?
4. Can a policeman live according to NAP?
5. Is a civil duel ok?
6. Is it possible to initiate force verbally? Is so, where is the line between threat and taunt?
7. Supposedly the state initiates force daily on you. Is it still true if you remain under that state even though you could escape to Siberia?
8. If someone accidentally steps on your land, do you have the moral right to shoot them?
9. At what age does a child become able to violate the NAP?
10. How much can you escalate if someone initiates the use of force against you? Ex: If someone cuts your finger off, can you take his house in retaliation?

1.Germany.

2.Germany.

3.Germany.

4.Everyone in a policeman's territory will have signed a contract governing his behaviour.

5.Only needs a contract (subject to stipulations in one's community contract).

6.Yes or no, as subject to the local community contract and drone-mounted AI.

7.No.  Suck it up or leave.

8.Yes or no, as subject to community contract.

9.Minus 9 months.

10.If someone cuts your finger off you ought to do a lot more than just retaliate equally.  What are you an ancient Israelite?  But of course this is all subject to the local community contract.

[shirgall]

It's difficult to pin the title initiator on people when there's a state involved as most states are older than any living being subject to them. The force was initiated by an ancestor. The states that recognize their actions are force and therefore limit those actions tend to be better than those who do not care. The invocation of the "social contract" is gaslighting intended to pacify the herd and prevent stampedes.

[shirgall]

8 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

1.Germany.

2.Germany.

3.Germany.

One could claim all of these problems were caused by Charlemagne (certainly the world wars in Europe and the conflicts in the middle east), but others could claim the Roman Empire caused them first.

[M.2]

4 hours ago, barn said:

Certainly I would be interested to know your thought processes and definitions describing NAP, so I could gauge your standing.
If that's what you thought of doing and about to add more words to the thread, even better.

I thought I had a good understanding of the NAP when I first heard about it: Simply "Don't throw the first punch". But when I tried to apply this principle to my life retroactively, I realised I may not have been alive by now. And then I became even more uncertain of my understanding when I heard Mr.Molyneux claim that the US embargo against Japan was an initiation of force.

2 hours ago, Boss said:

0. The NAP is the argument that the initiation of force(meaning to make someone do something against their will) is immoral. It is proven through UPB.
1,2,3. It was individuals who violated the NAP 
4. Anyone who wants to be moral can live to the NAP
5. Not sure what you mean exactly with civil dual. If it involves making someone do something against their will then it is immoral
6. Yes, For example, verbal threats while flashing his gun on his waist
7. someone who initiates the use of force daily is only further validating their immoral ways.
8. "accidentally steps on land" doesn't grant someone the right to shoot them. Just like how someone accidentally stepping on your toes wouldn't. However, If someone grabs you against your will and start stomping on your toes legs body head whatever, and the way to get away is to shoot the person. You should stop their immoral behavior by shooting the person
9. As soon as that child is consciously able to initiate the use of force.
10. If someone cuts off your finger, they have violated the NAP and is immoral. Cutting off a finger is taking away the person's physical property. Thus, I believe he can take the person's property to mitigate some of the damages done. 

11. My question to you is
What do you feel "works in philosophy, may not work in real life"?
what got you into wanting to learn about the NAP and the initiation of force and to ask these questions?
12. Thanks for the questions btw I love testing my current understandings 

0. I have read the long-form argument for that in Everyday Anarchy. 
123. Who knows who it was? Hangs on the definition of aggression, does it not?
4. Police, as far as I know, are called "the force", and are trained to initiate deadly force at the perception of a threat.
5. I take your answer is yes.
6. I know some people who disagree and  claim that only actual physical force counts. How would you convince them?
7. If your spouse is abusive, and you stay with them even though you have all the means to leave, are they still abusive, or are you masochistic?
8. I wouldn't say that I would shoot them, but do I have the MORAL right to? What is your reasoning? 
9. How would the DROs in our anarchic utopia set it?
10. What is your reasoning? How would a DRO solve it?
11. As I mentioned to Barn above, I cannot reconcile my understanding of NAP with my own past. And the further I look into it, the more confused I am. I find that NAP is pretty cut and dry as a concept, just like "Thou shalt not murder" is, but then there is a whole litany of small text under it.
12. Exactly what I am doing myself.

2 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

123.Germany.
4.Everyone in a policeman's territory will have signed a contract governing his behaviour.
5.Only needs a contract (subject to stipulations in one's community contract).
6.Yes or no, as subject to the local community contract and drone-mounted AI.
7.No.  Suck it up or leave.
8.Yes or no, as subject to community contract.
9.Minus 9 months.
10.If someone cuts your finger off you ought to do a lot more than just retaliate equally.  What are you an ancient Israelite?  But of course this is all subject to the local community contract.

123. Your reasoning?
4. Have we done so in our societies?
5. I take your answer is yes, supposing there is contract. Why is it illegal today though? Can't we write an enforcable contract?
6. In Asia, it is common understanding that if you insult someone's mother, you can expect to get your arse kicked, and if you call the police, they will kick your arse as well. Does this count as community contract?
7. So you claim you consent to the state's use of force (taxation etc) if you remain, therefore it is no longer immoral of them, correct?
8. Suppose he is not from your community.
9. Very catholic of you. I like your answer. But what is your reasoning?
10. Again, what if he is not from your community? Do you have the MORAL right though?

2 hours ago, shirgall said:

It's difficult to pin the title initiator on people when there's a state involved as most states are older than any living being subject to them. The force was initiated by an ancestor. The states that recognize their actions are force and therefore limit those actions tend to be better than those who do not care. The invocation of the "social contract" is gaslighting intended to pacify the herd and prevent stampedes.

Solve this for me, please. We know for sure that Finns, Hungarians, Estonians are not Indo-European. Therefore, they had to have come into Europe some time ago, killed a bunch of people and took their land. They don't even deny it actually, but are proud of it. Would the Indo-Europeans have the moral right to expell them? Children of the criminal don't get to keep the goods, correct?

[smarterthanone]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

What is the Initiation of Force? And what is wrong with it?

Here is my thoughts on what exactly is wrong with the initiation of force. I typed it out a bit quick and its a bit jumbled but you should get the idea.

1. Humans are basically animals, we have instincts too. (Are you born with an instinct to move your hand if something hot touches it. Yes.)

2. Ok. It can be a little confusing to look at human behavior in terms of what is instinct or not, so lets just look at animals.

3. If you attack a grizzly bear, what will it do? It will kill you. LIFE!

If you try and capture a grizzly bear in a cage what will it do? Kill you. LIBERTY!

If you try and use a Grizzly bears cave home, what will it do? Kill you. PROPERTY!

4. Realize the bear uses violence in return to these initiations of force. It is instinctual. Now think about humans, we have the same instincts. We are smart so we can stop from being 100% instinctual but we can't all always be 100% all of the time because it is instinctual, its not possible. Many times we cannot help ourselves but to commit violence in return. (See store owners who shoot looters in the back, if they were rational and did not want to go to jail they would not, but in the heat of the moment they cannot help themselves from protecting their property.)

5. THEREFORE, it would be unreasonable to believe you could violate peoples life liberty or property through the initiation of force without violence in return. Instinctual behavior cannot be immoral because ought implies can.

6. If you believe in the categorical imperative (or some variation of such like UPB I think also works), we could not wish all people to initiate violence against other people because they would in return be violent and everyone would die. Self defeating.

[shirgall]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Solve this for me, please. We know for sure that Finns, Hungarians, Estonians are not Indo-European. Therefore, they had to have come into Europe some time ago, killed a bunch of people and took their land. They don't even deny it actually, but are proud of it. Would the Indo-Europeans have the moral right to expell them? Children of the criminal don't get to keep the goods, correct?

Because of how long ago this happened, the maxim of possession being 9/10 of the law holds. Here's the conundrum: rights only exist for entities that can express and defend them from attack. This is why rights are not universal, but different from culture to culture. I prefer truth and universality. I also prefer to live on to carry on my genes to the next generation.

[shirgall]

What the Finns have most to be proud of is documented shooting of communists *and* fascists in World War II. They got that part right at least.

[Boss]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

123. Who knows who it was? Hangs on the definition of aggression, does it not?

I believe it hangs on the best reasoning and evidence. To figure out who initiated the use of force. 

4. Police, as far as I know, are called "the force", and are trained to initiate deadly force at the perception of a threat.

Anyone who initiation the use of force is immoral. 
 
6. I know some people who disagree and  claim that only actual physical force counts. How would you convince them?

Well, especially in children verbal abuse can raise cortisol, affect their brain which can be physically measurable changes.  

7. If your spouse is abusive, and you stay with them even though you have all the means to leave, are they still abusive, or are you masochistic?

You choose your spouse as an adult. Not sure what the details are in your situation or how is someone Refer suppose to leave their verbally agreed choice?

8. I wouldn't say that I would shoot them, but do I have the MORAL right to? What is your reasoning? 

accidents by definition happen unexpectedly and unintentionally. So why do you feel you "have the moral right to" 
refer to UPB for the "moral rights" 

9. How would the DROs in our anarchic utopia set it?
10. What is your reasoning? How would a DRO solve it?

If two people agree and signed a contract then the contract gets enacted the way both agreed to it


 

 

2

 

[Sir Exotic]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I thought I had a good understanding of the NAP when I first heard about it: Simply "Don't throw the first punch". But when I tried to apply this principle to my life retroactively, I realised I may not have been alive by now.

It may sound uncomfortable, but remember that the NAP is not a principle of how to stay alive most practically/efficiently, it is a moral principle.
For example, the NAP states that it is immoral to force yourself on a woman to procreate against her will, but the NAP does not tell you how to attract a woman, start a family, or even how to produce offspring ("survive" at the level of your genes)

As for 4, because I wasn't really satisfied with some of the other answers:
If the policeman is funded/paid by our current state, which is based on taxation, which is backed up by the threat and use of force, he cannot live according to the NAP in that aspect of his life.

[Will 001]

11 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

8. If someone accidentally steps on your land, do you have the moral right to shoot them?

I'm going to assume you're only concerned with accidental trespassing in the case where it's considered aggression. (You probably wouldn't shoot that person) How/Weather or not you retaliate isn't of concern to the NAP. The NAP is a "thou shall not", not a positive right like the right to self defense.

[Will 001]

In case you're not clear on what the NAP is, it simply means you can't use force against someone who hasn't first used force against you. It's a broad generalization with some apparent exceptions. 

EDIT: This comment is not intended to be snide in any way. Your question #8 suggested you weren't exactly sure, for the reason I covered above regarding question 8.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Will 001
Clarification

[barn]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I thought I had a good understanding of the NAP when I first heard about it: Simply "Don't throw the first punch". But when I tried to apply this principle to my life retroactively, I realised I may not have been alive by now. And then I became even more uncertain of my understanding when I heard Mr.Molyneux claim that the US embargo against Japan was an initiation of force.

Thank you.

Does the highlighted part stand for:

a., Had you not initiated force itself/in self defense (either perceived, claimed, justified/not), you'd be not alive.

b., Had your ancestors not initiated force itself/in self defense (perceived, claimed, justified/not), you'd be not alive.

- - - -

The way I live NAP is, my actions = my own, choosing to not act = also a form of action.

The actions of my ancestors are theirs alone, therefore I can't be held responsible for them without the option for negotiation, or at least the addition of new universal standards.

Barnsley

[Will 001]

Basic moral intuition probably seems to cover the NAP and it's exceptions, so you might be wondering why it even matters. NAP advocates are usually concerned with applying it to the state and parenting. Those are really the only areas where it's relevant, since pretty much all other moral areas are intuitive. NAP people are not trying to shut down boxing matches, or saying you can't exercise self defense on someone else's behalf, for example.

[Will 001]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I became even more uncertain of my understanding when I heard Mr.Molyneux claim that the US embargo against Japan was an initiation of force.

I remember him saying it was an act of war. Did he specifically say it was initiation of force or that it was immoral? (I would like to know. Not a rhetorical question)

[M.2]

11 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Humans are basically animals, we have instincts too. (Are you born with an instinct to move your hand if something hot touches it. Yes.) Ok. It can be a little confusing to look at human behavior in terms of what is instinct or not, so lets just look at animals. If you attack a grizzly bear, what will it do? It will kill you. LIFE! If you try and capture a grizzly bear in a cage what will it do? Kill you. LIBERTY! If you try and use a Grizzly bears cave home, what will it do? Kill you. PROPERTY! Realize the bear uses violence in return to these initiations of force. It is instinctual. Now think about humans, we have the same instincts. We are smart so we can stop from being 100% instinctual but we can't all always be 100% all of the time because it is instinctual, its not possible. Many times we cannot help ourselves but to commit violence in return. (See store owners who shoot looters in the back, if they were rational and did not want to go to jail they would not, but in the heat of the moment they cannot help themselves from protecting their property.)THEREFORE, it would be unreasonable to believe you could violate peoples life liberty or property through the initiation of force without violence in return. Instinctual behavior cannot be immoral because ought implies can. If you believe in the categorical imperative (or some variation of such like UPB I think also works), we could not wish all people to initiate violence against other people because they would in return be violent and everyone would die. Self defeating.

I don't disagree that there is a UPB. Only relativists and nihilists don't think there is a UPB. The problem is that we don't agree on what the UPB is. Even though the Mr.Molyenux method claims to use science, reason and evidence to determine the UPB, so do many other methods, including some sects of Islam. 
To play devil's advocate on the Darwinist side, it is possible that aggression could be the UPB, thereby eliminating all the weak genes from the pool. How do you answer that?

8 hours ago, shirgall said:

1. Because of how long ago this happened, the maxim of possession being 9/10 of the law holds. Here's the conundrum: rights only exist for entities that can express and defend them from attack. This is why rights are not universal, but different from culture to culture. I prefer truth and universality. I also prefer to live on to carry on my genes to the next generation.
2. What the Finns have most to be proud of is documented shooting of communists *and* fascists in World War II. They got that part right at least.

1. I wasn't talking about rights, but about universal morality.
2. I have no idea what this has to do with anything, but for your information, Hungarians, Finns, and Estonians all fought on the side of Germany to the end. Hungarians shot  bunch of Fascists as well, when they rebelled against the Germans in 1944 and were subsequently occupied.

6 hours ago, Boss said:

123. I believe it hangs on the best reasoning and evidence. To figure out who initiated the use of force. 
4. Anyone who initiation the use of force is immoral. 
6. Well, especially in children verbal abuse can raise cortisol, affect their brain which can be physically measurable changes.  
7. You choose your spouse as an adult. Not sure what the details are in your situation or how is someone Refer suppose to leave their verbally agreed choice?
8. accidents by definition happen unexpectedly and unintentionally. So why do you feel you "have the moral right to" 
refer to UPB for the "moral rights" 
910. If two people agree and signed a contract then the contract gets enacted the way both agreed to it

123. Sounds an awful lot like sophistry.
4. So police are all immoral by default.
6. Where is the line between violence and words?
7. I don't understand what you wrote here.
8. Because it is my land, and he is on my land without my consent. What's so complicated?
910. What if there is no contract? In most cases in life, there are no contracts.

6 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

1. It may sound uncomfortable, but remember that the NAP is not a principle of how to stay alive most practically/efficiently, it is a moral principle.
2. For example, the NAP states that it is immoral to force yourself on a woman to procreate against her will, but the NAP does not tell you how to attract a woman, start a family, or even how to produce offspring ("survive" at the level of your genes)
3. If the policeman is funded/paid by our current state, which is based on taxation, which is backed up by the threat and use of force, he cannot live according to the NAP in that aspect of his life.

1. That is so far the most intelligent response given, in my opinion.
2. What does "morality" serve in your view, if not to help humans stay alive? What does the UPB and the NAP serve specifically? What good does it do to respect free will?
3. Fair enough.

5 hours ago, Will 001 said:

1. I'm going to assume you're only concerned with accidental trespassing in the case where it's considered aggression. (You probably wouldn't shoot that person) How/Weather or not you retaliate isn't of concern to the NAP. The NAP is a "thou shall not", not a positive right like the right to self defense.
2. In case you're not clear on what the NAP is, it simply means you can't use force against someone who hasn't first used force against you. It's a broad generalization with some apparent exceptions. EDIT: This comment is not intended to be snide in any way. Your question #8 suggested you weren't exactly sure, for the reason I covered above regarding question 8.
3. Basic moral intuition probably seems to cover the NAP and it's exceptions, so you might be wondering why it even matters. NAP advocates are usually concerned with applying it to the state and parenting. Those are really the only areas where it's relevant, since pretty much all other moral areas are intuitive. NAP people are not trying to shut down boxing matches, or saying you can't exercise self defense on someone else's behalf, for example.
4. I remember him saying it was an act of war. Did he specifically say it was initiation of force or that it was immoral? (I would like to know. Not a rhetorical question)

1. If it is purposeful, there is no dilemma. I would argue that it is a concern of the NAP. If I shoot him, did I initiate the use of force, or did I only retaliate?
2. Clearly not so apparent, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this thread. I am still genuinely unsure.
3. Everyone has a wildly different moral compass. Because of all the shit I have seen, I will forever deny that there is such a thing as a universal moral compass, even though the Church claims there is one. I get the state and parenting thing, which is why I asked question 7 and 9.
4. "Why bombing hiroshima was unjustified" is the title. I quote "An embargo is an act of war, we understand that..." 5th minute mark. I think he mistook embargo for blockade. Doesn't make sense otherwise. 

4 hours ago, barn said:

Does the highlighted part stand for:
a., Had you not initiated force itself/in self defense (either perceived, claimed, justified/not), you'd be not alive.
b., Had your ancestors not initiated force itself/in self defense (perceived, claimed, justified/not), you'd be not alive.
The way I live NAP is, my actions = my own, choosing to not act = also a form of action.
The actions of my ancestors are theirs alone, therefore I can't be held responsible for them without the option for negotiation, or at least the addition of new universal standards.

You have to write more clearly, man. I'm tired of trying to guess what you mean.

[barn]

23 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

You have to write more clearly, man. I'm tired of trying to guess what you mean.

I see.

Perhaps if you asked me to explain something specifically or showed a minimum of intent trying...(as I did with your comment, the highlighted part)

I might.

Otherwise, no worries, we don't have to communicate here but I'd prefer mutual respect if you don't mind.

Barnsley

Edited December 15, 2017 by barn
constructivity +1

[shirgall]

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I have no idea what this has to do with anything, but for your information, Hungarians, Finns, and Estonians all fought on the side of Germany to the end. Hungarians shot  bunch of Fascists as well, when they rebelled against the Germans in 1944 and were subsequently occupied.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Lapland_War

[Sir Exotic]

44 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. That is so far the most intelligent response given, in my opinion.
2. What does "morality" serve in your view, if not to help humans stay alive? What does the UPB and the NAP serve specifically? What good does it do to respect free will?
3. Fair enough.

1. Thank you, I appreciate that.
2. If morality is only there for us to stay alive, then doing "immoral" things to further our survival would be considered moral. So either morality is merely a way to stay alive, or there's more. I believe that Morality is a "guide" of how to be good. And perhaps we can talk about good with a capital G, to emphasize it. Virtue is a mix of the pursuit towards Truth (facts, reality, what "is") and Honesty (personal behaviour; pursuit towards Truth) and with that comes humility. We cannot always be in line with Truth, even if we pursue it all the time. We make mistake, but even without mistakes, we are ignorant, in the sense that we're not Omniscient. The pursuit towards Truth is shown through our honesty, but humility is just as important for when we are wrong or make a mistake.

So, morality is not necessarily about your personal well-being or benefit. It's a universal justice kind of thing.
A few weeks ago I bought some candy is a big candy store, and as I was choosing the candy to put in a plastic bag (the ones you weigh, and then pay for), I put some another candy (that wasn't supposed to be weighed) in my pocket so I had both of my hands free. After I was done, I let me clerk weigh my bag and I paid. When I walked out of the store and reached into my pocket, I realized I still had the other candy in my pocket that I didn't pay for yet.

In this situation, from the perspective of the store/employee, I took something that wasn't mine without their consent. It was -1 candy for them, but from my perspective, I gained +1 candy without -1 money (payment). So according to the "universal justice" idea, I was benefiting +1 from that situation, but I still went back and paid for it, making it -1 money for myself, so I was back at 0 on the "scale of universal justice". 

That was longer than I anticipated, but I'm hoping it will help answer the questions you have.

[RichardY]

@smarterthanone

Liked the example of the bear. I wouldn't say that the bear is using violence as it defends it's rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Rather Aggression. As Steve Erwin (formerly known as the Crocodile Hunter) would say. "But I don't blame the bear, it's only doing what comes naturally to it."

I think violence can be something that a person may consider trivial, like feeding a bear. With the following corruption that it may cause. Had the bear been more aggressive or fearful as to not to been fed, it would not be capable of violence, in regard to say losing that fear of man and expecting a meal.... 

[Will 001]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. If it is purposeful, there is no dilemma. I would argue that it is a concern of the NAP. If I shoot him, did I initiate the use of force, or did I only retaliate?
2. Clearly not so apparent, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this thread. I am still genuinely unsure.
3. Everyone has a wildly different moral compass. Because of all the shit I have seen, I will forever deny that there is such a thing as a universal moral compass, even though the Church claims there is one. I get the state and parenting thing, which is why I asked question 7 and 9.
4. "Why bombing hiroshima was unjustified" is the title. I quote "An embargo is an act of war, we understand that..." 5th minute mark. I think he mistook embargo for blockade. Doesn't make sense otherwise. 

 

 

1., 2. & 3. I wrongly assumed your questions were mostly rhetorical questions intending to disprove the NAP. My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed.

3. Good point. My meaning was poorly articulated. I would amend my statement like this: "NAP advocates are usually concerned with applying it to the state and parenting. Those are really the only areas where it's relevant [the areas that are most important by far], since pretty much all other moral areas are intuitive [most of the time to most people]."

4. Agreed, I'm confused by his statement.

[Will 001]

EDIT: 1. Agreed. I was saying the NAP wouldn't be relevant if we took the premise that the trespassing was indeed initiating force. I now see that weather it's initiating force is fundamentally the question. Again, I wrongly assumed that this was a rhetorical question to disprove the NAP. I apologize.

[Will 001]

8 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. If it is purposeful, there is no dilemma. I would argue that it is a concern of the NAP. If I shoot him, did I initiate the use of force, or did I only retaliate?

1. Agreed. I was saying the NAP wouldn't be relevant if we took the premise that the trespassing was indeed initiating force. I now see that weather it's initiating force is fundamentally the question. Again, I wrongly assumed that this was a rhetorical question to disprove the NAP. I apologize.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎12‎. ‎14‎. at 10:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

0. "Gimme your money or I'll shoot you!" Theft is wrong because it violets personal property. Initiation of Force is being the one doing the violating. It is being the guy who starts the fight.
1. Chain reaction that begun with the Russian intervention of Austria's punitive war with the Serbians. Therefore either the Austrians for invading Serbia, or Russia for getting involved in their business.
2. The Third Empire when it invaded Poland.
3. The Jews for colonizing Arab land.
4. Yes. His job is, theoretically, to enforce the NAP by arresting violators.
5. Yes. Both sides are consenting to using force against one another.
6. Only by threatening to kill or harm someone, either physically, financially, or socially. Obvious the last part has the most ambiguity but I think starting false rumors counts as violating the NAP.
7. Yes. The State unjustly stole the land from the pioneers that settled it centuries ago.
8. Only if they are wearing a military uniform of an enemy country and appear very poised to invade and kill me. Otherwise unless there is an obvious intent to attack me or steal from me, of course not. Escalating beyond what is appropriate is also morally wrong. If someone accidentally stepped on my land, who cares unless he is damaging something or I hate him and explicitly told him to F off. In either case demanding an apology or repayment of the lost value is more appropriate.
9. The age of reason, whenever that is.
10. As much as the violater is willing to escalate. If he points a gun at me, I can shoot him. If he punches me, I can punch him twice (or until he stops punching me). If he accidentally steps on my hypothetical garden a small fine is enough. Punishment beyond reason is immoral. 

0. Aren't you violating someone else's property by occupying it and not paying rent?
1. By "who" I was actuall looking for a name. Somebody threw the first punch,
2. I think you mean to say "Hitler".
3. So the father of Zionism? (Happens to be another Hungarian Jew. What's wrong with these guys anyway?)
4. Right. That makes sense. But I believe a policeman is authorised to use preemtive force based on a reasonable assumption. Does that violate the NAP?
6. If you call someone's mother a whore in Asia, that is considered a threat, but not in the West, as far as I know. Does this disprove any part of the UPB?
8. Why is it immoral to escalate? What "appropriate" and who decides?
9. That's the question, isn't it now?
10. What is beyond reason and who decides?

8 hours ago, barn said:

I see. Perhaps if you asked me to explain something specifically or showed a minimum of intent trying...(as I did with your comment, the highlighted part) I might. Otherwise, no worries, we don't have to communicate here but I'd prefer mutual respect if you don't mind.

You hove no reason to doubt my respect for you. But I can't feel respect from you if I can't understand anything you are writing. As you see, I am more than willing to communicate with anyone whom I can understand, and I'm sorry I am unable with you.

7 hours ago, shirgall said:

 

Finland lost the war? No way. You just completely blew my mind.

7 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

1. Thank you, I appreciate that.
2. If morality is only there for us to stay alive, then doing "immoral" things to further our survival would be considered moral. So either morality is merely a way to stay alive, or there's more. I believe that Morality is a "guide" of how to be good. And perhaps we can talk about good with a capital G, to emphasize it. Virtue is a mix of the pursuit towards Truth (facts, reality, what "is") and Honesty (personal behaviour; pursuit towards Truth) and with that comes humility. We cannot always be in line with Truth, even if we pursue it all the time. We make mistake, but even without mistakes, we are ignorant, in the sense that we're not Omniscient. The pursuit towards Truth is shown through our honesty, but humility is just as important for when we are wrong or make a mistake. So, morality is not necessarily about your personal well-being or benefit. It's a universal justice kind of thing.

Makes sense. Can you prove objectively that abiding by a UPB is "good"? Whatever that is. I think the main thing not addressed in UPB is that "preferable" implies that there is a spectrum of things from bad to good. But one has to define what "good" is first, right? I'll give you an en example that is closer to the topic, if you don't mind. How do would you convince an outright Darwinist who says the UPB should serve the elimination of the weak, that we all should prefer the survival of the fittest, and therefore life is a free-for-all?

1 minute ago, Will 001 said:

1., 2. & 3. I wrongly assumed your questions were mostly rhetorical questions intending to disprove the NAP. My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed.

3. Good point. My meaning was poorly articulated. I would amend my statement like this: "NAP advocates are usually concerned with applying it to the state and parenting. Those are really the only areas where it's relevant [the areas that are most important by far], since pretty much all other moral areas are intuitive [most of the time to most people]."

4. Agreed, I'm confused by his statement.

EDIT: 1. Agreed. I was saying the NAP wouldn't be relevant if we took the premise that the trespassing was indeed initiating force. I now see that weather it's initiating force is fundamentally the question. Again, I wrongly assumed that this was a rhetorical question to disprove the NAP. I apologize. 

123. Apology accepted. Nothing here is rhetorical for further reference.
3. I get that. How would you answer 7 and 9? As you see from the responses though, there is hardly any agreement, even among the hardcore Ancaps of FDR. This is what worries me. If the UPB can be derived from "reason and evidence", why do people here come up with varying answers, even concerning such cut-and-dry pillars like the NAP?

[barn]

4 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

You hove no reason to doubt my respect for you. But I can't feel respect from you if I can't understand anything you are writing. As you see, I am more than willing to communicate with anyone whom I can understand, and I'm sorry I am unable with you.

Of course you can't... haven't even tried. So I am certain to assess you didn't want to, based on reason & evidence. At least, there's 0 evidence to the contrary, here.

I understand and it's fine. At least you know what you need to do if you changed your mind, here.

Take it easy,

Barnsley

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

0. Aren't you violating someone else's property by occupying it and not paying rent?

Only if it's the landlord's that's collecting and not the mafia that moved in.

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. By "who" I was actuall looking for a name. Somebody threw the first punch,

Kaiser Franz Josef the First? Tsar Nikolai the Second then? I suppose it could be the Kaiser because rather than dealing with the assassination domestically he invaded the Kingdom of Serbia. It could also be Tsar Nikolai because if he hadn't intervened the North German Kaiser wouldn't have intervened and by extension there would be no chain link reactions.

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I think you mean to say "Hitler".

In a totalitarian dictatorship, the dictator is the state. The Third Empire is Hitler. Hitler is the Third Empire. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. So the father of Zionism? (Happens to be another Hungarian Jew. What's wrong with these guys anyway?)

I suppose. Along with the Jews that carried the guns and willfully invaded the lands. The other examples can be excused because conscription and having to be forced to contribute to the war effort while, as far as I know, every Jew in Palestine volunteered. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Right. That makes sense. But I believe a policeman is authorised to use preemtive force based on a reasonable assumption. Does that violate the NAP?

Not if he's right. Therefore he has to be careful in his judgement. Given reasonable assumption, preemptive disarmament or subjugation is fine.

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

6. If you call someone's mother a whore in Asia, that is considered a threat, but not in the West, as far as I know. Does this disprove any part of the UPB?

No? I don't see the connection. Provocation is a violation of the NAP. UPB is about whether a rule can be universalized not if everyone believes in it (though in many cases everyone does by their actions. Like murderers don't want to be murdered, hence they fight back). 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

8. Why is it immoral to escalate? What "appropriate" and who decides?

Because shooting someone for a minor infraction is a punishment with a (to number it) value of 90 out of 100 for a crime that's worth a 1 or a 2. Appropriate in a situation is mutually determined. If I punch below the belt, it is fine to punch me in the kneecaps. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

9. That's the question, isn't it now?

It may vary per child. I'd argue when they can literally reason right from wrong based on what they've been taught. For example if I had an 8 year old girl that knew lying to honest people is wrong, I would hold her accountable to that act. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

10. What is beyond reason and who decides?

Beyond reason is when a punishment is way bigger than the crime. Like my arbitrary number scale: 1=Stole a candy bar (therefore punishment should be financial, an apology, or a slap). 

10: Stole an expensive electronic. Reasonable punishment is twice or thrice the value of the stolen object.

30: Broke a moral contract (like marriage). Reasonable punishment is a return of all goods to whom they originally belonged (or at least their value in kind) and a blacklisting of the contract breakers by society.

50: Killed someone. Reasonable punishment is an execution.

70: Started a war. Same plus vilification.

100: Committed genocide. Above plus whatever God determines is right in Hell.  

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Makes sense. Can you prove objectively that abiding by a UPB is "good"? Whatever that is. I think the main thing not addressed in UPB is that "preferable" implies that there is a spectrum of things from bad to good. But one has to define what "good" is first, right? I'll give you an en example that is closer to the topic, if you don't mind. How do would you convince an outright Darwinist who says the UPB should serve the elimination of the weak, that we all should prefer the survival of the fittest, and therefore life is a free-for-all?

I wouldn't argue with the Darwinist. I'd wait for him to give me cause to arrest him and/or exile him. He's dangerous if he puts his words into action.

UPB is objectively a practical good because it's why America and the British Empire existed, and was in part (that is in it's essential WASPy part) foundational to all Western European dominance over the world. We wanted to make the world moral like us, by whatever means we could. A terrible mistake, but an understandable one.

I cannot yet argue why something is objectively moral though. I wonder if it is even possible. All I can do is rely on instincts and "feelings of fairness" and see what happens practically. It seems like the countries that were historically closest to Godliness were always the hegemonists over the ones that were far from Grace. But perhaps I am wrong in that assessment. I don't know for sure but there seems to be a trend that moral societies are always high IQ, rich, and militarily powerful for their eras. 

[Sir Exotic]

31 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Makes sense. Can you prove objectively that abiding by a UPB is "good"? Whatever that is. I think the main thing not addressed in UPB is that "preferable" implies that there is a spectrum of things from bad to good. But one has to define what "good" is first, right? I'll give you an en example that is closer to the topic, if you don't mind. How do would you convince an outright Darwinist who says the UPB should serve the elimination of the weak, that we all should prefer the survival of the fittest, and therefore life is a free-for-all?

I would tell them that they don't understand the concept of survival of the fittest.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, barn said:

Of course you can't... haven't even tried. So I am certain to assess you didn't want to, based on reason & evidence. At least, there's 0 evidence to the contrary, here.

I understand and it's fine. At least you know what you need to do if you changed your mind, here.

Take it easy,

Barnsley

 

A bit off topic but might I suggest speaking more straight forwardly and plainly? English isn't his first language and I find it tough to read what you write sometimes.

I can't tell you how to write precisely but I can point out you use a lot of commas and type as if speaking in a condescending, passive-aggressive, sarcastic, nanny-like way. 

Not saying you actually are or mean to, but that's the voice I hear when I read you. Perhaps if you read what you type out loud to yourself you might catch where readers might stumble or misunderstand. Especially when those readers don't speak English natively. 

[Boss]

15 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

6. Where is the line between violence and words?

In my understanding, violence is physical force. But words can play a role in a persons physical body especially when they are younger and can't move away. As I stated through raise cortisol and brain development. We would have to measure the person cortisol and brain and see the full evidence and reasoning of the case to know the situation.

8. Because it is my land, and he is on my land without my consent. What's so complicated?

Someone accidently stepping on your land is not a violation of the NAP. As it is not aggression as you stated it was an "accident" 

910. What if there is no contract? In most cases in life, there are no contracts.

Damanges are measurable to an extent. Like if someone burns down a house. You can see the market value for the house, market value for the things inside. and market value for the person's time(based on his job) to know the cost of the damages.

As far as no contracts, If there is no contract then the person can create one next time in his next deal.
 

 

 

[smarterthanone]

19 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't disagree that there is a UPB. Only relativists and nihilists don't think there is a UPB. The problem is that we don't agree on what the UPB is. Even though the Mr.Molyenux method claims to use science, reason and evidence to determine the UPB, so do many other methods, including some sects of Islam. 
To play devil's advocate on the Darwinist side, it is possible that aggression could be the UPB, thereby eliminating all the weak genes from the pool. How do you answer that?

You don't need to agree on UPB. When you use nature and what is as the formulation, you cannot come to another conclusion. We have instincts and evolutionary processes. These exist. Fact. If you think you can initiate force without anyone ever responding in defense you just live in dream fantasy land. Even if we were to will that self defense is immoral, people often can't help themselves but to still defend themselves.

Aggression is not the best way to further your genes. If something is to be an objective moral system, such as the NAP, it would have to apply all the time. So imagine you are on a small island, there was a plane crash and you and 1 other person survives. You have no supplies at all. You each go off and scrounge around for food and stuff. Now, you have the option, you could beat the other person with a stick and thus have all the banana trees for yourself HOWEVER 1. you lose someone to cooperate with and divide labor 2. If you injure yourself in the fight, even if you are victorious, you will die from infection from when you slice your hand open on the stick you whacked him with.

So sure people can initiate force from stupidity because its not usually a good gamble. Its like if you play Russian roulette, you win you get 10 million dollars, you lose you die. Its not a good gamble in terms of natural selection because the last time I checked, people who didn't have 10 million dollars still have plenty of kids. Its the morons game. I would look to I think its Thomas Aquinas who said that we could discover morals through our own intellect etc etc. so if someone does not use their capabilities then they will not act moral because they have not properly applied themselves but they could. Even in society, you could rob a bank but the risk of jail or getting into some kind of shoot out vs the money you could get is not a very good reward in terms of furthering your natural processes.

 

12 hours ago, RichardY said:

@smarterthanone

Liked the example of the bear. I wouldn't say that the bear is using violence as it defends it's rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Rather Aggression. As Steve Erwin (formerly known as the Crocodile Hunter) would say. "But I don't blame the bear, it's only doing what comes naturally to it."

I think violence can be something that a person may consider trivial, like feeding a bear. With the following corruption that it may cause. Had the bear been more aggressive or fearful as to not to been fed, it would not be capable of violence, in regard to say losing that fear of man and expecting a meal.... 

The point is its not the initiation of aggression or force or violence, however you want to describe it, its the response. The bear in these circumstances is always responding due to instinct.

The feeding bear I don't see how its applicable. If humans feed the bear and put it in weird circumstances and stuff ie destroy the woods and now its eating out of a dumpster etc and now it attacks someone that kind of stuff is all something else and taking it to the next level of complex as opposed to bringing about simplification which I am trying to do with the example.

[RichardY]

@smarterthanone So it would be in no way wrong to feed a wild potentially dangerous animal?

Yeah well the Bear/Beast is using aggression to defend its own survival, instinctively. So maybe aggression could be considered instinctual, though is violence instinctual as well? Are you saying there is no distinction between aggression and violence?

Maybe could go further and mention that bears and many animals will kill female cubs to put the female into heat. Could that be considered instinct as well?  

[M.2]

14 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

0. Only if it's the landlord's that's collecting and not the mafia that moved in.
1. Kaiser Franz Josef the First? Tsar Nikolai the Second then? I suppose it could be the Kaiser because rather than dealing with the assassination domestically he invaded the Kingdom of Serbia. It could also be Tsar Nikolai because if he hadn't intervened the North German Kaiser wouldn't have intervened and by extension there would be no chain link reactions.
2. In a totalitarian dictatorship, the dictator is the state. The Third Empire is Hitler. Hitler is the Third Empire.
3. I suppose. Along with the Jews that carried the guns and willfully invaded the lands. The other examples can be excused because conscription and having to be forced to contribute to the war effort while, as far as I know, every Jew in Palestine volunteered.
4. Not if he's right. Therefore he has to be careful in his judgement. Given reasonable assumption, preemptive disarmament or subjugation is fine.
6. No? I don't see the connection. Provocation is a violation of the NAP. UPB is about whether a rule can be universalized not if everyone believes in it (though in many cases everyone does by their actions. Like murderers don't want to be murdered, hence they fight back).
8. Because shooting someone for a minor infraction is a punishment with a (to number it) value of 90 out of 100 for a crime that's worth a 1 or a 2. Appropriate in a situation is mutually determined. If I punch below the belt, it is fine to punch me in the kneecaps.
9. It may vary per child. I'd argue when they can literally reason right from wrong based on what they've been taught. For example if I had an 8 year old girl that knew lying to honest people is wrong, I would hold her accountable to that act.
Beyond reason is when a punishment is way bigger than the crime. Like my arbitrary number scale: 
11. I wouldn't argue with the Darwinist. I'd wait for him to give me cause to arrest him and/or exile him. He's dangerous if he puts his words into action.
UPB is objectively a practical good because it's why America and the British Empire existed, and was in part (that is in it's essential WASPy part) foundational to all Western European dominance over the world. We wanted to make the world moral like us, by whatever means we could. A terrible mistake, but an understandable one.
I cannot yet argue why something is objectively moral though. I wonder if it is even possible. All I can do is rely on instincts and "feelings of fairness" and see what happens practically. It seems like the countries that were historically closest to Godliness were always the hegemonists over the ones that were far from Grace. But perhaps I am wrong in that assessment. I don't know for sure but there seems to be a trend that moral societies are always high IQ, rich, and militarily powerful for their eras. 

0. Would it be reasonable to say that tax in a monarchy is legitimate? (I know we already had this conversation)
1. To be frank, I think the entire history of ww1 stinks a bit of fabrication and ditrortion. But it's clear that it is hard to decide who violated the NAP, correct?
2. To be devil's advocate, Hitler was only responding to Entente aggression, which was constantly directed towards Germany during the Weimar era. The Ruhr was occupied by the French, and West Prussia by the Polish.
3. To my knowledge, the Jews bought the land from the locals peacefully. Forced resettlement only began after 1948, when the arabs attacked.
6. So provocation is violation of the NAP? But who decides what is provocation?
8. What do you mean "mutually determined"?
9. So the parent of the child decides?
11. If you cannot be objectively certain what good and bad is, then UPB is pretty redundant, wouldn't you agree? It's like following a compass in space. In my understanding, UPB is a good methodology for determining what good is, based on what flawed humans find good. Since UPB (of the Molyneux kind) only works with humans, it cannot be completely objective.

7 hours ago, Boss said:

6. In my understanding, violence is physical force. But words can play a role in a persons physical body especially when they are younger and can't move away. As I stated through raise cortisol and brain development. We would have to measure the person cortisol and brain and see the full evidence and reasoning of the case to know the situation.
8. Someone accidently stepping on your land is not a violation of the NAP. As it is not aggression as you stated it was an "accident" 
910. Damanges are measurable to an extent. Like if someone burns down a house. You can see the market value for the house, market value for the things inside. and market value for the person's time(based on his job) to know the cost of the damages.
As far as no contracts, If there is no contract then the person can create one next time in his next deal.

6. So until we do that, it is safest to go with physical force? In other words, the NAP can only be violated when there is some sort of physical result?
8. I would have to disagree with you. If someone kills my dog with a car, even if it was an accident, you bet I'm going to treat it as aggression. I don't think courts or DROs can deal with "accidents" or "extreme carelessness".
910. But a contract is only enforcable as far as the reach of the court or the DRO goes. If the aggressor is foreign, is there no way to deal with him? Or does his consent no longer matter?

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

1. You don't need to agree on UPB. When you use nature and what is as the formulation, you cannot come to another conclusion. We have instincts and evolutionary processes. These exist. Fact. If you think you can initiate force without anyone ever responding in defense you just live in dream fantasy land. Even if we were to will that self defense is immoral, people often can't help themselves but to still defend themselves.

2. Aggression is not the best way to further your genes. If something is to be an objective moral system, such as the NAP, it would have to apply all the time. So imagine you are on a small island, there was a plane crash and you and 1 other person survives. You have no supplies at all. You each go off and scrounge around for food and stuff. Now, you have the option, you could beat the other person with a stick and thus have all the banana trees for yourself HOWEVER 1. you lose someone to cooperate with and divide labor 2. If you injure yourself in the fight, even if you are victorious, you will die from infection from when you slice your hand open on the stick you whacked him with.

3. So sure people can initiate force from stupidity because its not usually a good gamble. Its like if you play Russian roulette, you win you get 10 million dollars, you lose you die. Its not a good gamble in terms of natural selection because the last time I checked, people who didn't have 10 million dollars still have plenty of kids. Its the morons game. I would look to I think its Thomas Aquinas who said that we could discover morals through our own intellect etc etc. so if someone does not use their capabilities then they will not act moral because they have not properly applied themselves but they could. Even in society, you could rob a bank but the risk of jail or getting into some kind of shoot out vs the money you could get is not a very good reward in terms of furthering your natural processes.

1. The Molyneux UPB assumes that physicists and scientists don't disagree, or that when they debate, the scientist with the best evidence will win the debate, but both of these scenarios are in dream land. Even on the forums, the hardcore ancaps are coming up with varying assessments of the same moral question, as you can see.
2. You scenario assumes that we CAN cooperate. But in real life there are often disagreements, especially those over values, that cannot be resolved with dialogue, and that is where wars start. If the other guy you crashed on the island with was of a weird Papuan religion, and believed that burning trees can cause fish to swim ashore for food, and then began burning some trees, you would have to intervene, and aggressively at that. If you don't, there is a good chance that everything on the island will be burned, and then you will surely die. This may sound like an off-world example, but disagreements like this one caused some big wars in the past.
3. I would dare you to quote Thomas Aquinas fully. You may find he is saying something entirely different there.
It would seem that you think people choose violence lightly. In my understanding, violence is the tool of one who can see no other way. So again, who decides what is UPB? If we rely on human intellect, that is nowhere near objective. It is weird to me that one would want to live in such an uncertainty.