Arguments against NAP.

[J.L.W]

So playing the devils advocate here. On what I believe about the actual subject my ideas are still forming, but I have somewhat of a respect for certain people in the military that do work behind the scenes against child traffickers and the deep state etc.

So here is one incident I heard of. A drug dealer, a really troublesome guy that had been creating violence in the neighbourhood for a long time, but had started off as a decent guy (the slide into addiction!) Was taken out to the woods by a policeman friend of his and told, that if he didn't shape up, he would be shot, and no one would ever know what happened to him.

Apparently the guy got better after this. I have also heard other stories such as this of force where troublemakers have been reformed.

So how do examples like this effect NAP?

[RichardY]

The justification of a principle, such as the NAP debases it, and the NAP is based purely on justification.

Does a person decide to feel aggression towards someone drug dealing to kids, or do they just feel it, whether they act on their aggression or not.

[barn]

Hi,

In my opinion, the anecdote you put forward has nothing to do with the NAP, given that threat was applied (+wielding unfair state power). Also, seemingly the person was allowed to sink so deep... (wink-wink, determinism)

Where are the hundreds (or thousands) of people who, to various degrees, they too are guilty in one way or another? Why do THEY get a free pass? How's that preferable, 'fair'? What does your story say about prevention? Or there's no prevention and people either start disappearing or they escape and continue 'business as usual' because their mind's made up regardless?

I don't believe in utilitarian arguments for their tendency to bend morals, skip further investigation especially in cases where 'simple solutions' appear 'reasonable', appeal to those that have power and that's all they need for convincing. Not good.

Not sure anecdotes like this one would make me think of an imaginary policeman like you eluded to, a law abiding, respectable character... instead, it would reinforce a much worse...

[RichardY]

I don't think the NAP is something you can argue against, I think it comes down to whether you want  "a floating point" principle (an approximation) or something more real like UPB. Or perhaps to act to act in a non-dualistic way.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Simple: what if the value sets between A and B are so great that they cannot avoid fighting each other?

Like if Group A believes itself utterly perfect in values and just in seeking to conquer the world, but hasn't quite gotten around to doing it yet, while Group B is the NAP group that is highly pacifist. Either Group A will attack Group B when it's most convenient OR, violating the NAP (potentially), Group B could preemptively attack Group A and do whatever they must to destroy Group A to prevent Group A from trying to subjugate their neighbors and impose their "perfect" ideology.

It could be argued Group B was acting in self-defense, but Group A wasn't actively threatening anybody. They just have as a blanket statement a fanaticism in their correctness and a desire to impose it on the world. However they didn't, at the time, have a workable army or plan and so were mostly keeping to themselves.

It could be said a time to violate the NAP is when someone else is doing it and the people under that someone else cannot rise up on their own to reform. Our, more simply, "my neighbor's house is on fire! Do I break in to hose it down, or respect their privacy?". That may sound unreasonable but what if trying to blow out the fire would extend it to the NAP-guy's house, endangering his own family? See how this all connects to the real world?

I'm not saying I disagree with the NAP, but I do think we ought to very wary and, as a society, hostile towards those that openly seek global domination and consider themselves so perfect as to be non-negotiable, as well as skeptical to those that think it's a good idea to intervene in the immorality of those who are geographically distant and culturally alien.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim

[ofd]

Robert Nozick found some good arguments why the NAP doesn't work in theory. The best is that it doesn't allow for degrees of aggression. Shooting a gun into a crowd violates the NAP. If you put one round in a chamber and spin the drum of a revolver and then play Russian Roulette with the crowd, the NAP is violated just as much though the chances of the gun firing are 1 / 6. You can universalize that and say no matter how many chambers are in the gun, the NAP is violated when you point it at a crowd and pull the trigger. That's when you have hit the jackpot, because from a certain chambersize on (say 400 000 chambers in an imaginary gun), driving a car is more lethal than shooting the gun. Thus, driving a car violates the NAP.

[smarterthanone]

9 hours ago, ofd said:

Robert Nozick found some good arguments why the NAP doesn't work in theory. The best is that it doesn't allow for degrees of aggression. Shooting a gun into a crowd violates the NAP. If you put one round in a chamber and spin the drum of a revolver and then play Russian Roulette with the crowd, the NAP is violated just as much though the chances of the gun firing are 1 / 6. You can universalize that and say no matter how many chambers are in the gun, the NAP is violated when you point it at a crowd and pull the trigger. That's when you have hit the jackpot, because from a certain chambersize on (say 400 000 chambers in an imaginary gun), driving a car is more lethal than shooting the gun. Thus, driving a car violates the NAP.

Terrible example against NAP. Aiming a gun with 1/400000000000 chance to kill them is aiming it at them. Driving a car is not aiming the car at them. One is an accident and one that the person "opts into" the risk by driving or walking on the road at that and one is purposeful and they have no reason to expect a gun aimed at them (unless they are walking at the end of a gun range or something knowingly). They are not equivalent.

Degrees of aggression is given to the victim. ie. If someone steals food from you, you decide whether its worth shooting them over or not. If you don't think someone would make a good judge of your theft, you should find someone else to steal from, its your problem not theirs. I don't see what the issue is.

[smarterthanone]

12 hours ago, J.L.W said:

I have somewhat of a respect for certain people in the military that do work behind the scenes against child traffickers and the deep state etc.

There are so very few child traffickers you are talking nonsense. There is like 10. No seriously. Ok more than 10 but its really very very rare. All the statistics you see are lies. They include voluntary adult prostitution. So don't trust anything coming from such blatant fake sources. The biggest source of that kind of obscenity is actually the FBI, they keep file of every single known record in full color and HD and even make their own websites and stuff. What sickos.

 

12 hours ago, J.L.W said:

So here is one incident I heard of. A drug dealer, a really troublesome guy that had been creating violence in the neighbourhood for a long time, but had started off as a decent guy (the slide into addiction!) Was taken out to the woods by a policeman friend of his and told, that if he didn't shape up, he would be shot, and no one would ever know what happened to him.

Apparently the guy got better after this. I have also heard other stories such as this of force where troublemakers have been reformed.

Drug dealers are not violating the NAP. Next.

 

 

 

 

[J.L.W]

8 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

There are so very few child traffickers you are talking nonsense. There is like 10. No seriously. Ok more than 10 but its really very very rare. All the statistics you see are lies. They include voluntary adult prostitution. So don't trust anything coming from such blatant fake sources. The biggest source of that kind of obscenity is actually the FBI, they keep file of every single known record in full color and HD and even make their own websites and stuff. What sickos.

As a rule I generally like to unquestioningly believe such statements when stated by anonymous internet sources, especially where contrary evidence exists in the form of the Podesta emails and other things.

The amount of children that go missing anually in the United States is 800,000. That's 2,000 per day. 

[J.L.W]

[J.L.W]

17 hours ago, barn said:

Not sure anecdotes like this one would make me think of an imaginary policeman like you eluded to, a law abiding, respectable character... instead, it would reinforce a much worse...

I did think I would have to back up this example.

This came from a public figure who worked for a long period in this area. Suicide hotlines and had experience with drug rehabilitation. Unfortunately, of course I can't get more detailed information on the story. 

I could try and find it and re- read it for clarity.

[J.L.W]

17 hours ago, barn said:

In my opinion, the anecdote you put forward has nothing to do with the NAP, given that threat was applied (+wielding unfair state power). Also, seemingly the person was allowed to sink so deep... (wink-wink, determinism)

I don't agree this was necessarily wielding of unfair state power. Since, we don't know the policeman did this in his capacity as policeman. Or that he would have to. 

[J.L.W]

17 hours ago, RichardY said:

I don't think the NAP is something you can argue against, I think it comes down to whether you want  "a floating point" principle (an approximation) or something more real like UPB. Or perhaps to act to act in a non-dualistic way.

I think it is hard to THEORETICALLY argue against. But generally, if you can find examples of when a principle did not work, or was not ideal, then you can start to build back up to theory.

[barn]

1 hour ago, J.L.W said:

19 hours ago, barn said:

Not sure anecdotes like this one would make me think of an imaginary policeman like you eluded to, a law abiding, respectable character... instead, it would reinforce a much worse...

I did think I would have to back up this example.

This came from a public figure who worked for a long period in this area. Suicide hotlines and had experience with drug rehabilitation. Unfortunately, of course I can't get more detailed information on the story. 

I could try and find it and re- read it for clarity.

Right. It's not that I'm questioning your credibility, not at all (you gave me no reason so far).Additionally, I'd assume that you summarised the story adequately as well. It's not that.

Here, I was trying to point out that stories involving people taking the initiative and using state power arbitrarily is the least, reinforces some perspectives where law enforcers (can) choose to 'be above the law', skip established procedures arbitrarily and by doing so chip away the credibility of the institution.

RULES are very important! Even in Anarchy.

1 hour ago, J.L.W said:

19 hours ago, barn said:

In my opinion, the anecdote you put forward has nothing to do with the NAP, given that threat was applied (+wielding unfair state power). Also, seemingly the person was allowed to sink so deep... (wink-wink, determinism)

I don't agree this was necessarily wielding of unfair state power. Since, we don't know the policeman did this in his capacity as policeman. Or that he would have to.  

What do you think about these :

If he didn't do it as an officer, he's a criminal, should be prosecuted. (no self-defense arguments can apply)

If he did it as an officer, it's much worse because he shouldn't have been part of the unit, plus his actions are detrimental to the reputation of the whole institution. (if you can't function within the regulations, you're risking your & your co-workers' safety, should have reported yourself or resigned before any of the happenings of the anecdote)

[J.L.W]

35 minutes ago, barn said:

If he didn't do it as an officer, he's a criminal, should be prosecuted. (no self-defense arguments can apply)

If he did it as an officer, it's much worse because he shouldn't have been part of the unit, plus his actions are detrimental to the reputation of the whole institution. (if you can't function within the regulations, you're risking your & your co-workers' safety, should have reported yourself or resigned before any of the happenings of the anecdote)

My point was that it was against the rules so defined, and it worked. The guy cleaned up and stopped with the things he was doing.

[barn]

2 hours ago, J.L.W said:

My point was that it was against the rules so defined, and it worked. The guy cleaned up and stopped with the things he was doing. 

Thanks for clarifying it.

Do you also think that as long as something 'works', rules can be dismissed by individuals?

Edited July 2, 2018 by barn
grrrmer

[J.L.W]

3 hours ago, barn said:

Thanks for clarifying it.

Do you also think that as long as something 'works', rules can be dismissed by individuals?

In this case the policeman probably did the right thing and I would probably have done the same in his place. This is assuming I understand the facts of the matter and it would perhaps be good for me to re- read it. I think if someone is intent on causing others harm then harsh measures are clearly needed. Of course missing from this example is why the justice system failed up until that point. Why was this drug dealer not in jail?

By the same token if in the UK for instance, someone had a raped relative and decided to kill the person involved that the police were not handling, I don't have a problem with that. In Russia a group of about thirty people got together ahd killed a paedophile. Or more correctly, thirty ish people watched him being beaten up and two or three men went back the next day and killed him. Don't know what I think on this one.

Another example was one my father told me where a guy was a really difficult kid when he was young and a policeman just beat him up and this guy said it did him a world of good and he straightened up after that. This one just seems a bit wrong to me. Probably because I don't take seriously that a kid is that dangerous.

I had heard, this is from sources i trust but sources it is likely many of the people reading this wouldn't. That there was a group of FBI personnel looking into some serious level of paedophilia, seriously bad stuff. This was mostly political figures in councils and things like that. Examples of what these people were doing is not necessary. Some of them snapped and tortured and killed the paedophiles but they were taken off the case when they did that because it is not strictly legal to do that. So perhaps these levels do respect the law.

[RichardY]

On 7/2/2018 at 10:42 AM, J.L.W said:

I think it is hard to THEORETICALLY argue against. But generally, if you can find examples of when a principle did not work, or was not ideal, then you can start to build back up to theory.

Well the NAP is axiomatic, so you are arguing against something taken to be true. So in order "argue against it" a better way has to be put forward instead.

--------------- Rational ----------------

Whether that is UPB; which to me looks like a re-work of Kant's Transcendental Idealism. Replacing God with the Self(or Self Ownership). Kants categorical imperative, applied to the state and taxation. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."  The imposition of order on the world perhaps.

I was put off by Kant when I heard "Philosophy is worse than usless", when referring to his pure aprioi cognitions. I remember Stefan saying knowledge is empirical, Tabula Rasa(Blank Slate); rejection of apriori information. 

Quote

But although general logic cannot give directions to the faculty of judgement, the case is very different as regards transcendental logic, insomuch that it appears to be the especial duty of the latter to secure and direct, by means of determinate rules, the faculty of judgement in the employment of the pure understanding. For, as a doctrine, that is, as an endeavour to enlarge the sphere of the understanding in regard to pure a priori cognitions, philosophy is worse than useless, since from all the attempts hitherto made, little or no ground has been gained. But, as a critique, in order to guard against the mistakes of the faculty of judgement (lapsus judicii) in the employment of the few pure conceptions of the understanding which we possess, although its use is in this case purely negative, philosophy is called upon to apply all its acuteness and penetration.

 

One other thing, I think as to whether a person acts virtuous or malevolent  is dependent on their  "Goodwill" according to Kant. It is after all possible to be passive aggressive without ever intiating the use of force, to effectively block someone, possibly endangering their survival or to act recklessly, which may cause others to calm to harm, not necessarily through no fault of theirs.

Quote

Kant's Goodwill.

A shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in accord with duty and not overcharge a child. Kant argues, “it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law.” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Akademie pagination 390

Another thing I think might happen with Kants Transcendental Idealism is a splitting of consciousness, despite Kant's Categorical Imperative. Like When Stefan mentioned "Makers(Good) & Takers(Bad)" in a recent video, which I think is a false dichotomy. For instance; in the movie "Instinct" starring Anthony Hopkins, the word "Takers" is used to refer to the human civilization. In contrast Maker is never used, instead the point is that people lived in nature and were a part of it, rather than the rationalisations by civilized society.

The word "Maker" is a rationalisation ex post facto and adds nothing. Instead I think the "Haves and Have Nots." as the original saying is a better way of consciousness. Something more in line perhaps with Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle or the Bible perhaps. Evil or the Bad being a deprivation of the Good, and not something externalised on to others.
 

----------------------Arational (Conjurgation of Opposites) -------------------------------------

What I'm interested in, is whether there might be a way of resolving various opposites as a way of thinking, a kind of fuzzy logic perhaps. The resolution of dualistic lines of thinking into a more monistic undividied consciousness. I think there are a few texts that deal with Monistic thinking the, Tao Te Ching being one. Dichtomies between Stength and Weakness, Rich and Poor, Chaos & Order, Good and Evil, Yes & No, 1 & 0.

I'm interested in texts related to non-dual thinking. 

[barn]

Hi @J.L.W

I asked you this

On 07/02/2018 at 3:17 PM, barn said:

On 07/02/2018 at 2:40 PM, J.L.W said:

My point was that it was against the rules so defined, and it worked. The guy cleaned up and stopped with the things he was doing. 

Thanks for clarifying it.

Do you also think that as long as something 'works', rules can be dismissed by individuals?

to which you responded, with :

On 07/02/2018 at 7:23 PM, J.L.W said:

In this case the policeman probably did the right thing and I would probably have done the same in his place. This is assuming I understand the facts of the matter and it would perhaps be good for me to re- read it. I think if someone is intent on causing others harm then harsh measures are clearly needed. Of course missing from this example is why the justice system failed up until that point. Why was this drug dealer not in jail?

By the same token if in the UK for instance, someone had a raped relative and decided to kill the person involved that the police were not handling, I don't have a problem with that. In Russia a group of about thirty people got together ahd killed a paedophile. Or more correctly, thirty ish people watched him being beaten up and two or three men went back the next day and killed him. Don't know what I think on this one.

Another example was one my father told me where a guy was a really difficult kid when he was young and a policeman just beat him up and this guy said it did him a world of good and he straightened up after that. This one just seems a bit wrong to me. Probably because I don't take seriously that a kid is that dangerous.

I had heard, this is from sources i trust but sources it is likely many of the people reading this wouldn't. That there was a group of FBI personnel looking into some serious level of paedophilia, seriously bad stuff. This was mostly political figures in councils and things like that. Examples of what these people were doing is not necessary. Some of them snapped and tortured and killed the paedophiles but they were taken off the case when they did that because it is not strictly legal to do that. So perhaps these levels do respect the law.

 I'm sorry but I can't figure out what your response was, though I can see you added new information/topics.

Could you be more direct or rephrase your answer to my question if you did in fact respond to it?

(naturally, only if you want to)

Thanks

[ofd]

Quote

I was put off by Kant when I heard "Philosophy is worse than usless", when referring to his pure aprioi cognitions. I remember Stefan saying knowledge is empirical, Tabula Rasa(Blank Slate); rejection of apriori information.  

Well, then you were misinformed what Kant's all about. Kant's ideas are pretty simple, when you break them down. 1) You can't gain knowledge using a prioristic reasoning 2) Our senses are made up in such a way that we interpret the enviroment in a specific way 3) Ethics has to be universal if it is to be an ethical system at all

It speaks for the laziness of most people on the libertarian part of the ideological spectrum that they take Alissa Rosenbaum's word for what Kant said instead of actually reading him.

The problem with pure logical positivism is the frame of reference. A dog gets different empirical information than a human who perceives the world differently than a tick and so on. None of those perceptions is better than the other, they are either functional for the proliferation of genes or they are not.

[smarterthanone]

On 7/2/2018 at 5:26 AM, J.L.W said:

As a rule I generally like to unquestioningly believe such statements when stated by anonymous internet sources, especially where contrary evidence exists in the form of the Podesta emails and other things.

The amount of children that go missing anually in the United States is 800,000. That's 2,000 per day. 

I will take that stat at your word. But even if we do, can you imagine any other situations which may cause a child to go missing... you know besides child traffickers? So none are taken by a non custodial parent or other non custodial relative? None that are capable of walking, run off and fall in ravines and things and aren't found immediately? Both of those happen all the time. So simply saying that 2000 a day has anything to do with child traffickers is nonsense.

As I said above, most of the stats regarding this include voluntary adult prostitution. The 27 year old girl who is banging dudes in a hotel is not a child, nor trafficked and should not be included in statistics but most statistics released by the government include them.