Forum Index » Chaff » the non-aggression principle


Display Avatars Sort By:
Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: west coast best coast
the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 01:30:44 MST Print View

The founding principle of all libertarian philosophy and the moral justification for anarchy.
What is chaff's opinion on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TI-pm0m2o

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 17:50:41 MST Print View

I think it's a fine idea but the first serious doubt I have about its implementation is whether or not technological/industrial civilization of this scale is even possible without aggression towards/exploitation of other people and/or their property.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 17:56:43 MST Print View

Libertarians create all these terms, very complicated.

I'm for non-aggresion, but I don't see that as a justification for not paying your taxes.

Interesting about the conflict over specific issues like religion or abortion.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 18:14:18 MST Print View

Another quick question I'll throw in concerns property rights. NAP obviously hinges pretty heavily on the concept of private property. Inconvenient fact, but most of the private property of this world has been secured through aggression of some sort against someone and it continues to go that way.

So when it comes to the legitimacy of private property, how many generation back do you want to extend NAP principles?

When it comes to the defense of "private property", it's quite easy to say history is history when your culture/civilization happens to be the victor.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 18:17:50 MST Print View

I have sympathies towards sociocollective-anarchists, particularly those who're lgtbq and/or of color. They're aware the system has failed them utterly, and they mostly focus on taking care of their own, avoiding engageing with power structures as much as possible. They have no illusions of their communities formenting a wider revolution, nor do they want such a thing (sometimes the white ones are more aggressively anarcho-communist, but they also tend to be shitheads, so.). Libertarian anarchists dream of a law-free, gun-filled, yet inexplicably peaceful privately-owned wonderland for all, a notion that is laughable at every possible level.

Edited by spelt on 12/05/2013 18:19:31 MST.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 18:23:11 MST Print View

Interesting. According to my attached link, 6 million children are abused in some way every year here in the U.S. How would this be resolved in a stateless society which has adopted the NAP? Would the abuser go to jail? If so, what if they said no?

http://www.childhelp-usa.com/pages/statistics

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 20:10:50 MST Print View

"According to my attached link, 6 million children are abused in some way every year here in the U.S. How would this be resolved in a stateless society which has adopted the NAP?"

Why, that kind of behavior would disappear in a stateless paradise. Everybody knows the only reason people abuse defenseless children is because of the pressures and frustrations of living in a modern, high speed, technologically driven society where everybody feels alienated and disconnected from their fellow man. They're just looking for luv and affection, Ian. You're just afraid your job would disappear. ;0) ;o)

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: west coast best coast
Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 20:11:25 MST Print View

To be clear, I'm not an anarchist. I just find anarchist/capitalist philosophy to be fascinating. I find it very difficult to argue against the non aggression principle from a moral standpoint. The argument that any form of government is inherently violent, because it uses violent physical force against those who disobey a mandate, is a sound argument.

"sociocollective-anarchists" sounds like an oxymoron unless it's voluntary. That's the whole point of anarchy... voluntary association allows people to associate in whatever way they want, be it a collective society or a free market society.

In response to Ian, I don't have a good answer for that. However I will say that many minarchists have argued that one of the few legitimate functions of government (besides protection against aggression, protection of property, protection of liberties, enforcement of contracts, ect.) is to protect children from harm and abuse.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 20:22:00 MST Print View

If children are property, parents are free to abuse them with impunity, and defend (or not) their property from outside adults. Property rights doncha know.

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: west coast best coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 20:28:48 MST Print View

I've never heard an anarchist argue that children are property. I suppose in a stateless society if someone abused their child and their local community disapproved of it, they could get together and forcefully take custody of that child. (self defense of your liberty, or the defense of another persons liberty is not aggression, assuming a child is consider an individual with rights)

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 20:34:08 MST Print View

Of course it's voluntary. People who're systemically oppressed by society freely decide to minimize engagement with said society and live collectively or in a mutually accountable community and make decisions by consensus. Not saying it works particularly well all the time; in fact I have seen problems with abusers and failures of community justice, albeit with rape and domestic violence instead of child abuse. In many ways it just replicates larger society right down to the problems, but in some ways it works better for the participants than "normal" living.

Edit: the children as property thing was (slightly) tongue in cheek.

Edited by spelt on 12/05/2013 20:43:35 MST.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 21:17:14 MST Print View

"The argument that any form of government is inherently violent, because it uses violent physical force against those who disobey a mandate, is a sound argument."

I agree with this to an extent, but I would take it one step further to say that all forms of large scale human civilizations are inherently violent, because they require a locally unsustainable level of resources (and often labor) to make them possible, forcing them to push outward (or exploit classes within).

The Hadza of Tanzania are a pretty good example that illustrate people living in a truly communal, collective, and relatively nonviolent society. I don't think that it's any accident that they typically limit themselves to bands of a few dozen people and that they're self-reliant hunter gatherers.

There seems to be threshold in human societies at which the trouble starts- too many people to support, too many people to work together, and too many resources required to sustain a sedentary group...and the conquests and wars begin. The magic number seems to be pretty low if you study cultural anthropology and hunter-gatherer societies.

I think that anarcho-primitivists put forth the most cogent critique in this regard.
(I believe this belief of mine led someone to call me the Unabomber in an old thread!)

The problem is, there's not much of a solution if civilization itself is the root of so much of the mass exploitation and violence we see in this world.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/05/2013 21:20:38 MST Print View

Justin,

There's a lot about the libertarian philosophy that I really like. There are far too many people in prison. I don't think homosexuals or polygamists should be precluded from marriage. I think the federal government is far too big and many of the programs should be handled at the state level. I think we've taken deficit spending too far. I think we need to stop trying to play the world's 911 service. I think the death penalty is barbaric.

But then I listen to that video and really get a sense that there is a lot of arm chair politicking going on and some of the proposed ideas are impractical and illogical. I'm not in a position to say he's wrong but there wasn't anything in that video that would convince me he's right.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/06/2013 08:12:51 MST Print View

I agree that in principle, there is a lot to like about libertarianism. The problem comes in when your rights interfere with my rights. Then who wins?

If you want to smoke, great. What if I don't want to breathe your carcinogens?
You don't want to vaccinate your kids, great. What if your kid's germs infect my child with a deadly disease?
If you want to shoot a gun on your property, great. But what if that bullet hits me on my property?
You don't want to wear a seatbelt or helmet? I honestly don't care, until you ask me and my tax dollars to support your disabled a$$ after your accident.

Kind of reminds me of the cliche "you're right to swing your arm ends at my face."

So what do we do about that? In a large society that's why we have laws and regulations…to ATTEMPT to delineate my rights and yours, and to keep you from infringing on mine. I don't think anarchists nor libertarians have come up with good answers to this.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the non-aggression principle on 12/06/2013 08:44:10 MST Print View

Conservatives or libertarians are good for keeping the liberals or progressives in line.

Don't do "feel good" programs that are expensive and not effective.

And vice versa.

But the current "do anything to make Obama unsuccessful" policy is going overboard

And both political parties have been corrupted by the huge amounts of money that has bought our government

Sarah Kirkconnell
(sarbar) - F

Locale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
Two words on 12/06/2013 10:33:02 MST Print View

Two words that show why regulation can be a good thing:

Chinese Smog.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
You Can't Ignore Human Nature on 12/06/2013 12:29:30 MST Print View

Humans need good laws and norms both to inspire and to protect. The worst abuses happen when folks try to create 'paradise on Earth'. Be it Christendom, Sharia, rabidly secular Communism, or some sort of fantasy 'lawless freedom'.

Edited by ben2world on 12/06/2013 12:34:48 MST.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Two words on 12/06/2013 18:15:05 MST Print View

Oh now c'mon Sarah...if you try to stop all that smog spewing you'll be a job killer!!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Two words on 12/06/2013 18:51:50 MST Print View

That smog doesn't hurt anyone, there's a group that does research that shows it's harmless, don't worry about it...

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy) - F

Locale: Colorado
Solar Panel on 12/06/2013 19:29:41 MST Print View

I wonder how much of their pollution is subsidized by US solar panel rebates?