Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 21. (Read 20458 times)

You can't.  He has more fire-power.  All he has to do is refuse arbitration and what was yours is now his.

Both parties are justified in doing what they do based upon their own moral code. It would appear that one of the parties is not a believer of the NAP, and thus he is unlikely to hire an arbitration firm that is a believer of the NAP. Thus we have NAPs and NOT-NAPs. That sort of renders the NAP to be non-universal in belief and application.

Ahh... but he has harmed you. That was your house he broke into and took possession of. You are justified in evicting him by force, since he attempted to evict you by force.


I find it much more interesting what you cut out.... But that aside. You seem to want a rational basis for the NAP as a moral code. I suggest you read or listen to Universally Preferable Behavior, by Stefan Molyneux. You can find it, and his other books, for free here: www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

If Myrkul's explanation of the NAP is correct, a guy who has his own militia can take possession of an empty house.  For example, your house when you are at work.  When you come home, instead of calling of the police, you invite him to "arbitration."  If he refuses, you tell all your friends that he is not a nice guy.

Not a great system.  I prefer the million laws starting with the ones against breaking and entering.

Applause! You go guy!! +1 

Do a million laws accomplish anything other than an overly expensive legal system with overpaid lawyers benefiting from everyone's misfortune? In the end the judgement goes just one way or the other in general. Does it somehow incite some magic social glue to have an incoherent set of legislation that only a few can understand?   

This doen't change whether you have one or a million laws, does it?

From what people are saying here, the NAP is fine if you are dealing with nice people who follow the NAP.  IF you live in an area where people are more prone to aggression, for example parts of Ireland, the NAP is a consoling thought as you are being slaughtered for having the wrong religion.  At least morally, you are on the right side even if you do end up dead.

Interesting replies.

You call this bunch of pictures "evidence"? 21 instances of kindness are evidence that people worldwide are willing to help stop the suffering of the poor and weak? Heck, even 21 million wouldn't be enough. Anyway, this is more like appeal-to-emotion than a rational argument. I'm far too lazy to actually look, but I'm pretty sure I could spend a couple of hours and find a equally convincing bunch of pictures that would destroy anyone's faith in humanity.
It's not obvious to me that when you give people back their tax but take away their new expenses (private police, private health care, road construction etc), that people will have more money available for charity. A NAP society is, by definition, each-man-for-himself, and companies will pay minimum wages in order to compete in the market, so I somehow doubt that private charity will increase; but that's just my subjective experience.

nybble41 is wrong. There are two justifications I can give for me to initiate violence against others while they cannot against me.  First, I am stronger. It is only necessary for me to also be clever about never fighting stronger opponents than me, and so I can morally justify being a tyrannical dictator. Second, because I'm hungry, a justification surely inaccessible to the rich capitalist. If nybble41's argument required justification for initiation of violence to be symmetrical between two parties, then it fails.

Ah, so therefore there is no basis for the NAP? It is merely an axiom? Well, it's validity is certainly not obvious to me nor, I suspect, to many other forum members. It cannot therefore be an axiom.

Fancy conducting a poll to establish if the NAP could be an axiom? Let's debate how to propose the poll to our mutual satisfaction. We could agree that if some minimum threshold of replies indicate it is not an axiom then, by definition, it is not an axiom. I would suggest a threshold of 5% or so (for an axiom to be an axiom, it must be obvious to all people). The question might be:

"The only rule in a libertarian society is the Non Agression Pact, NAP, which states: "Do not initiate violence or fraud." Should we try to justify this on logical, economic, moral or ethical grounds (or other grounds, comment below), or is it so obviously valid and practical that it requires no a priori justification? (practical in the sense that it could work in a modern, large, multi-cultural, highly mobile society)."  The options might be:

1. The NAP requires no justification. It is obviously a valid and practical principle by which humanity could live contentedly.
2. I have doubts about the validity of the NAP. It is not obviously a valid and practical principle by which humanity could live contentedly.

My evidence: http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/pictures-that-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity

But again, note that I said "[if] there are people who care about people who can't pay for their defense, then there will be a charity to pay for it." So if there are not people who care, then there will not be a charity. But if you care, then there are at least two.

I'd also like to point out that even with the tax burden, there are plenty of private charities now. I see no reason that they would evaporate without the State.


Honestly, nybble said it best:

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

You seem so convinced about this business of charity. Given our society as we know it, what basis do you have for such a... such a.... such a belief in human philanthropy? (I scorn belief. Present your evidence, and I will accordingly accept or reject your hypothesis.)

Saying the NAP's morality is in it's own wording is like saying the bible is a sacred book because the bible says so. If you agree with the NAP, great, then you are morally obliged to agree with it. If you *don't* agree with the NAP, then there is no moral obligation to do so. What I'm asking you for is: on what grounds should people *choose* to adhere to the NAP? Why should no person have the right, a priori, to initiate force or fraud against another?  Again, in both directions - a society that abrogates all but one law, can freely choose to abrogate also the NAP, just as an anarchic society that chooses to create one law, can freely choose to create also others. Why stop at just one law? If NAP's morality is only self-referential, then there is no reason to initially select it. As in the thread title, I ask again: "What's so special about the NAP?", though given that it's only enforcement is self defence, then I could also ask "What's so useful about the NAP?".

Why do you need the NAP to state that? As I said several times before, the NAP is meaningless.

I'll ask you again, for about the tenth time over the past year: what if I hire a gang of thugs (oops - I mean security firm) who aren't into the NAP, but instead, the NNNAP. NNNAP stands for Not Necessarily Non Aggression Principle. This might be the wording of the NNNAP: No person has the right to stand within 20 feet of me when I am wearing black, regardless of where I am.

I rather expected you to pick up on this, Yes, there are people who can or will not defend themselves. That's fine, since it opens up a market opportunity. Since there's a need for people to defend those people, someone will show up to provide that service. If they can't pay, and there are people who care about people who can't pay for their defense, then there will be a charity to pay for it.


The moral structure of the NAP is in the wording of the NAP: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person.

Suppose a person is unable or unwilling to defend themselves. How is the NAP enforced then? I'm sure that generations of libertarian philosophers have a better response than simply 'self defence'. And, if, to my disgust, that really is the ultimate basis for libertarianism, then why bother with the NAP at all? Everyone has to go around armed to the teeth anyway so what use is it?

Whose moral grounds? Yours? Please state specifically which moral grounding NAP is based on - but remember that for it to work, then ALL members of the lib. society in question must subscribe to that moral structure.

I was under the impression that moral absolutism had been more-or-less universally rejected by philosophers the world over; with the exception of, e.g., religious philosophers who have an interest in promulgating an absolutism created by an eternal and unchanging God. Though, even there, the absolutism changes with time - I remember when one couldn't eat meat on Friday. Once upon a time lending money at interest was immoral, as was getting a divorce. Once upon a time homosexual acts were considered perfectly normal, as was interracial marriage. How about pre-marital sex? The list goes on.

I'm not a philosopher by profession (unfortunately), so perhaps someone more educated than me could provide better evidence that moral absolutism has been conclusively rejected.

There are, one must accept, social groups which probably do behave, within the group, more according to a NAP than anything else. Quakers, for example, though I have no direct experience. Mormons aswell perhaps? Primitive tribes? Inner city streetgangs or mobs? Mafia organisations? Help me out here folks. The problems are two: firstly in such a social group, something as formal as a NAP is unnecessary because members will naturally cooperate for mutual benefit; secondly, where two such social groups interact, you'd need an external authority to reconcile their differing moral values or a bloodbath would ensue.

Or maybe they were inspired to reinvest back into their business and hire workers so as not to be in such a high tax bracket. Maybe the government had reduced debt and more money to invest in the nation's infrastructure, employing more people. Maybe more people in the lower tax brackets had more disposable income. And then they went out and spent that disposable income at businesses, and those businesses made money, and reinvested it.

Maybe trickle down isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

You have this thing that when the facts are not what you want, you say "Lets ignore them and carry on."  Its sort of sad.

It is on moral grounds, and it is enforceable.

Enforcement of the NAP is called "self defense"

Folks, this thread has turned into a pro-NAP anti-NAP flame war, something I wasn't intending with the OP. My question was specifically asking why libertarians like the NAP so much - forum rules state that we should preferably remain on-topic.

So, I wish to consider a society with the maximum freedom, where even the NAP is eliminated. There is no social contract which obliges people not to initiate violence. Now, if anyone *does* go around being violent, they'll eventually meet their match, and so violent people will be eventually eliminated, right? Of course, since there are no restrictions, then all people retain the right to self-defence.

Someone in this thread said something like "NAP is a natural law". Well, I have to say, but that's flat out incorrect. Humanity's natural state, as a caveman, was full of violence - fighting for food, for mates, for survival, of one's self and one's offspring would have been a typical day out.

Someone else asked, and this was interesting, that if, in a libertarian society, there is no authority which can enforce the NAP, then does the NAP really exist? I mean, if I have to assume that any random stranger I meet might initiate violence, then I'll surely have to be constantly ready to defend myself, and the NAP's utility approaches zero. Of course, the NAP would apply when I meet people, for example, with whom I regularly trade. But then, well, if I regularly trade with them, then I won't really need a NAP now, will I?

So: Why The NAP?

It can't be to increase productivity and efficiency for a society, 'cos otherwise you could justify a law saying, 'no loud music after 11pm', so that everyone can sleep better (or any other similar example).

It can't be on moral grounds - all morality is relative (I hope this is not in dispute).

It can't be on utilitarian grounds - same applies as with the loud music after 11pm.

So what's so special about the NAP?  Given that it's unenforceable, which calls it's very existence into question, and there appear to be no convincing grounds on which to apply it, then why have it at all?  Eliminate the damn NAP, and go for a *truly* free society.

[Just to be clear, I am largely anti-libertarian. I think a lib. society could function for a small group of, at most, a few thousand people; bigger than that and members' honesty and loyalty will take second place to personal greed and self-preservation instincts. That's my opinion.]

But how many people actually met that high tax bracket? How many people altered their finances specifically to avoid it? How much more would the economy have grown without that high bracket? I can't answer those questions, can you?

Not correct.  You can conclude that people saying that high taxes or the national debt or high rates of trade union activity cause economic problems are talking nonsense as you now have facts that prove otherwise.