For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[arthrimus]

Nothing in this post complies with NAP.

Block, Rothbard, etc. would all say that you should be punished for initiating force against your neighbor. Block said as much, if you value the life of your neighbor, you should have no problem accepting the punishment for initiating force and trespassing on private property. Of course, NAP and foreign policy can't exist. That is a simple application of the axiom. There can't be a government to initiate force.

Correction, nothing in that post complies with your flawed understanding of NAP. It has been repeatedly explained to you in great detail in this thread and you still don't get it. My guess is that you probably never will. So with that in mind I recommend that you not bother yourself with this discussion any longer. It's a waste of both your time and ours if you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation.

 

[dross]

Nothing in this post complies with NAP.

Block, Rothbard, etc. would all say that you should be punished for initiating force against your neighbor. Block said as much, if you value the life of your neighbor, you should have no problem accepting the punishment for initiating force and trespassing on private property. Of course, NAP and foreign policy can't exist. That is a simple application of the axiom. There can't be a government to initiate force.

So you're saying that my neighbor can kidnap someone and hold them against their will and no one may rescue the captive because they would be violating the neighbor's property rights? Ridiculous.

 

[level.eleven]

Correction, nothing in that post complies with your flawed understanding of NAP. It has been repeatedly explained to you in great detail in this thread and you still don't get it. My guess is that you probably never will. So with that in mind I recommend that you not bother yourself with this discussion any longer. It's a waste of both your time and ours if you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation.

Start here.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The outcome, consequences, are immaterial. The only aspect that matters is adherence to duty. The duty in the case of NAP is to never aggress. Creating lists of exceptions simply leads to consequentialism, the opposite of duty.

I am surprised more libertarians haven't shown in up in this thread to set the record straight on NAP. There has to be a few that understand NAP. It isn't situational.

I mean, right on the main proponents website, it states the logical conclusion is anarchism.

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki

The ONLY aspect that can be judged is the duty. Not the results. The results are irrelevant.

ETA: Everyone in this discussion is a consequintial libertarian and not a NAP libertarian. Regardless of how hard they may try. It isn't an issue of understanding NAP. NAP is quite clear. There is a single interpretation. Thus, a duty that applies in every scenario - the root of deontological ethics. You cannot contextualize the aggression. You cannot have degrees of a duty.

 

[level.eleven]

So you're saying that my neighbor can kidnap someone and hold them against their will and no one may rescue the captive because they would be violating the neighbor's property rights? Ridiculous.

I am not saying that. NAP says that, and yes, NAP is ridiculous. You are trespassing and have no contract with the individual.

Here, instead of a hostage, Block uses the old boulder scenario.

His conclusion?

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]No, the only proper libertarian judgment is that I am indeed guilty of a battery upon your person. My motives may have been exemplary, but my act, strictly speaking, was in violation of your property rights in yourself. I might well be let off with a light sentence, given the extenuating circumstances, but guilty I am.[/FONT]

Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression

ETA: You also laid out another glaring flaw with deontological ethics. Duty conflict. NAP can't resolve a duty conflict.

 

[level.eleven]

Seems clear to me, too. You're delegating an initiation of force against someone who has no say in the matter. It's an unnecessary procedure that they could consent to at a more advanced age, if they wished. Yes. It's a violation of the ZAP/NAP. An easily avoided one.

You know, you could jump in and help at anytime. Genital mutilation is low hanging fruit.

 

[level.eleven]

David Friedman lays out perfectly why NAP needs to be abandoned in his book Machinery of Freedom.

My Site File

The above link goes to his book. He doesn't use webpage titles.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You know, you could jump in and help at anytime. Genital mutilation is low hanging fruit.

Are you volunteering? I'll bring the hedge clippers!

 

[mydoghasfleas]

You know, you could jump in and help at anytime. Genital mutilation is low hanging fruit.

I knew someone (as a kid) who while wearing a loose fitting pair of shorts (shorts were shorter in the 80's) and tried to sit for the "slide" at the top of an escalator exit.

I dont know if any of the NAP was violated, but "low hanging fruit" was.

 

[steveh_131]

 

[level.eleven]

meme.jpg

Honestly, give that Friedman piece a read. It sums up the objections rather well. Namely that, if we are to the point that we are discussing consequences, NAP is already out the window. David is the son of Milton, for what its worth.

 

[poptab]

Honestly, give that Friedman piece a read. It sums up the objections rather well. Namely that, if we are to the point that we are discussing consequences, NAP is already out the window. David is the son of Milton, for what its worth.

Interesting chapter, though I still think the NAP is useful. I also dont think it was ever meant to be anything but a political philosophy. Ethical dilemmas pose problems to every philosophical theory. What consequences are you willing to accept?

Maybe I am wrong but I still think our current government is evil.

 

[level.eleven]

Interesting chapter, though I still think the NAP is useful. I also dont think it was ever meant to be anything but a political philosophy. Ethical dilemmas pose problems to every philosophical theory. What consequences are you willing to accept?

Maybe I am wrong but I still think our current government is evil.

It is a tool in the toolbox. I don't agree with the absolutism. I also object to the use of evil. I can show you the remains of truly evil governments, if you like.

 

[Lex Concord]

It is a tool in the toolbox. I don't agree with the absolutism. I also object to the use of evil. I can show you the remains of truly evil governments, if you like.

Anybody can do that. The trick lies in recognizing the buds.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Anybody can do that. The trick lies in recognizing the buds.

 

[steveh_131]

It is a tool in the toolbox. I don't agree with the absolutism. I also object to the use of evil. I can show you the remains of truly evil governments, if you like.

I thought I've been pretty clear that this is simply the best baseline for where to begin when designing a society. It is not my complete ethical stance and it may not be perfect.

This is why I keep asking you for a better suggestion, but you continue to dodge the question.

I read the Friedman article, and it was interesting, but I don't have the time to break it all down right now and argue the points that I didn't agree with.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Anybody can do that. The trick lies in recognizing the buds.

That, and then having the political tools to "nip" those buds.
Many of our "buds" have allready flowered and reproduced.

 

[apfroggy0408]

Happy I found this thread!

I'm a fellow anarcho-capitalist and interested in getting in touch with others who value freedom as much as I do. Moving to the Columbus area in the next few weeks.

Check out my blog

Alex and Liberty

 

[apfroggy0408]

I can only get to page 9 of this thread without getting turned off from the constant misconception people have about freedom.

It's not about a certain "class of rights" it's about natural rights derived from the obvious right of self-ownership (this can be expounded even more via Hoppe).

It's not that I want to give more classes of people "more" rights it's that everyone has the same rights and that the State is the ultimate impediment on human rights.

It's useless to argue over being more free or less free within the system we have because the system itself is detrimental to freedom.

Get out of the damn argument over the problems of "giving more rights", everyone has equal rights and my goal is to do whatever I can to eliminate every fence that stops humans from being completely free.

I await some more misinformed attacks on a free society.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I can only get to page 9 of this thread without getting turned off from the constant misconception people have about freedom.

It's not about a certain "class of rights" it's about natural rights derived from the obvious right of self-ownership (this can be expounded even more via Hoppe).

It's not that I want to give more classes of people "more" rights it's that everyone has the same rights and that the State is the ultimate impediment on human rights.

It's useless to argue over being more free or less free within the system we have because the system itself is detrimental to freedom.

Get out of the damn argument over the problems of "giving more rights", everyone has equal rights and my goal is to do whatever I can to eliminate every fence that stops humans from being completely free.

I await some more misinformed attacks on a free society.

I take it you must be an anarchist?

 

[apfroggy0408]

That's correct.