Nap Grey Areas And Implications

Discussion in 'Politics' started by yurigadaisukida, Jul 22, 2014.

  1. What is NAP? Nap is the "non aggression principal.

    This is the basic belief held by libertarians and anarchists. The idea is that you are free to do whatever you want; as long as that freedom doesn't infringe on another's freedom. You cannot be an aggressor but you can defend against aggressors.

    But this line of thinking doesn't solve anything. You must define aggression.

    Are predatory business practices that prey upon the week acts of aggression? I say yes. Human are naturally weak willed, and you can claim voluntarism all you want; but fact is people are easy to fool. These people don't always have a choice.

    When you are addicted to a highly addictive and dangerous drug like Meth, are you making a voluntary choice? I guess technically. But if you say that you've probly never suffered from a true addiction. It very easy to convince a young weak mind to try a drug that they may not know the risks. Then they get hooked and it's not really a choice anymore.

    Look at people who's lives are being destroyed by drug addiction. Do you think people want to live like that? That they are making a conscious choice?

    What about bankers that trick entire nations into perpetual debt? Is tricking people into becoming indentured servants not a violation of NAP?

    I know many people will disagree with me, but that further illustrates the problems with nap.

    We both believe we follow nap, but I believe I've been aggressed upon and you don't. Now there is conflict. How is it settled? Court? What happens if I lose? My life has been destroyed and my money has been taken, and society claimed it was not an aggressive act, but my own weak choices.

    Anyone ever wonder why people turn to lives of crime? It happens when they fall into the situation described above. When people feel.victimized by society itself and stop caring for others.

    Did you know that sugar addiction displays the same brain chemistry as heroin addiction? Salt and sugar are both addictive and you'd be hard pressed finding "healthy" foods at the grocery store.

    Hypothetically you have a choice to eat healthy. It "voluntary". That is, assuming that you are informed and know that "healthy foods" are often still loaded with sugar and salt. Many people think they are eating healthy but aren't. Is that a choice too? The sugar industry thinks it is.

    Are not bankers and drug dealers and many corperations violators of NAP?

    How about another example. Should fireworks be illegal? What if you "accidentally " burn my house down? That's not an "oops sorry" scenario. That's one person who's life just got destroyed, and one person who has absolutely no way of compensating ttlhe victim. Is playing with dangerous stuff a violation of other peoples freedom? I say yes.

    So far we have bankers, drug dealers, many corperations and businesses, playing with fireworks, all things libertarians would probly defend under the idea of freedom and free markets.

    Are regulations not nessesary to defend peoples freedom? How is a law/regulation instantly a violation of NAP? Further more, what inherently makes government anti NAP? taxes? I think its all fine details. There is nothing in the definition of "government" or "police" or even "military" that is contradictory to the NAP. Only in tradition but not definition does.government violate the NAP.

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  2. That's why religion should run the state.
     
  3. Why?
     
  4. Sorry I didn't mean state. I meant the world.
     
  5. Why? Lol

    Sent from my SCH-S738C using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  6. http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an_ethical_critique_of_a_limited_ideology/
     
     
    You should read the whole piece, Yuri, because it sums up a lot of what you are saying. 
     
    The above though is an important part that touches on those gray areas that you are talking about.
     
    It's why the "you can always move to another country" is a completely valid argument against libertarianism.  If choice is binary, and does not exist on a spectrum, then there is no force keeping you here other than environmental constraints.  However, if libertarians acknowledge that environmental constraints can be hierarchical and authoritarian, without force or coercion, then the rest of the philosophy of "voluntary vs. involuntary" falls apart. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
  7. A passionless, unhindered, unbiased class administrating fair rulership. Vouching for the sovereignty of each individual being and resolving all conflicts of ideology. What is the perfect religion?
     
  8. #8 Lenny., Jul 22, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
    Religion is just a set of ideas. People are the emobiment of those ideas. And people are not unhindered, unbiased, and fair. A case could be made for passionless though.

    I don't want to live in a theocracy.
     
  9. That's not the idea. Look into the sikh empire of raja ranjit singh
     
  10. #10 Runningw235, Jul 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2014
     
     
    I think the author confuses and mixes a few separate, very different definitions of "free".
     
    When libertarians say they value "freedom" they are usually referring to the noun central in the concept of libertarian free will which can arguably be defined as:
     
    "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God." (or some variation of this definition) - Theopedia
     
    So the constraints that negate freedom, in this sense of the word, result directly from another human being or a deity. 
     
    Notice that this concept does not include constraints or determination which are not directly caused  by either of the aforementioned sentient actors. For example, I am "constrained" or "determined" not to be of the size or capability needed to be a professional NFL player. This  does not, according to the Libertarian Free Will concept, make me any less "free" than the NFL player. It may make me less fortunate in many ways, but certainly does not restrict my freedom in the political sense of the word. 
     
    The non-human, non-deity culprit in this case, nature (which I suppose is responsible for my not being 300 lbs of muscle), is not a morally culpable entity because it does not choose among various alternatives as humans and (supposed) deities. For these reasons, most libertarians would pass no moral judgement on the differences in my well being and that of Peyton Manning. 
     
    So, the quote from your article as follows is not necessarily true:
     
    Within the libertarian ethical framework, choice is binary. Either something was consented to voluntarily or it was not. This conception of consent marks the line between good and evil. On one side of the line are socially acceptable behaviors and on the other side are impermissible behaviors.
     
    A correction would state, ".....Either an act committed by a man/deity upon another was consented to voluntarily or it was not." 
     
    As with the aforementioned example, I did not consent to be genetically less able in professional football. This certainly does not make me less free, in the political and legal sense. It does make me less wealthy, grants me fewer alternatives in life (including things like healthcare, marriage prospects, the ability to travel, etc.), and may well lead to a net decrease in happiness. None of these things determine the freedom (in this sense) that an individual has. The last sentence in the above excerpt is altered by this corrected definition as well. Certainly not everything that is voluntary is good, nor everything coercive bad (until you  include one human actor  acting upon another). There are good and bad things that neither result from voluntary action nor coercive behavior upon the individual by others. I doubt any libertarian would tell you otherwise. Being struck by lightning falls into this sphere, and is most certainly "bad".
     
     
     
    Such blanket statements redefine the libertarian concept of "freedom" or "free" into oversimplified constructs. After defining the premises of the philosophy incorrectly, thereby  limiting the scope and application of the concepts, the author then refers to it as "limited". Generally the author is knowledgeable, but he is way off the mark with this article. 
     
  11. Ok I looked it up but I'm failing to understand your point. It says he allowed people of different religions to rise to power and that people from different religions were tolerated and represented. That's the only thing about religion that I found in my preliminary search. Will look more when I am not working.

    But what am I trying to find here?
     
  12. #12 pickledpie, Jul 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2014
    Actually nothing really. I think it was just an incredible empire with great warriors. They got fucked over sneakily from the inside though.

    I'm just saying that there should be a a definite set of laws and values that work the best for human progress and peaceful coexistence.
     
  13. Unless you want thought-police, aggression against attitudes is not legitimate, and only defensible with another thought.  And so the aggression that the state, or any other legitimation of violence, makes is with direct violence or threat thereof, and is defensible with direct violence or threat thereof. 
     
    Nobody is ever going to agree on what is voluntary or not, but at best democracy is mob violence and theft (theft against a body or the body's creation), and a republic is a small group of supposed representatives of the mob enacting violence.
     
    I'd rather we start at peace and respect of peoples property rights (their mixture of labor) and have to argue for violent interaction (IMO only if someone else completely disrespects peace or people's property rights).
     
    I understand that where we are had to do with continuous violence (legislation), but we must not continue to think that violence is the answer.  Peace and voluntary interaction is prosperous and violence (destruction) is not.  The only way to progress is through peace and property. 
     
  14. #15 yurigadaisukida, Jul 24, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2014
    Pacifists get taken advantage of. That's why self defense is permissible under the NAP.

    That being said, a regulation on corperations to protect the working class is not an aggressive act but a self defensive one.

    "State" (the people) "violence" (laws) are not violations of the NAP because they are not aggressive but defensive.
    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  15.  
     
    Bold 1: Could you give an example?
     
    What regulations protect the working class and are defensive rather than aggressive?
     
  16.  
    "Regulating" the Fed away.
     
  17. For example, there are federal regulations that require you to give employees a safe work are free from hazards.

    Regulations that require food to he safe for consumption.

    You can say free market should he responsible for this. That people can just boycott places. But that clearly doesn't work. Just look at wallmart. How many people boycott wallmart? I do. But most people dont ggive a fuck.

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  18. I think there are some misconceptions here. I was once an anarchist but I've realized the situation is too complex

    You cannot simply be an extremist and say something like free markets will solve all the problems.

    Here are some other examples.

    Police/security is a nessesary job for society. It is not nessesary for this job to be funded by theft (taxation)

    Same with military.

    Central leadership and organization help a lot with some aspects of society. You don't have to call it "government" if you don't want.

    Again I believe taxes are theft, but that "government" and "taxes" are not synonyms

    I've come to realize that anarchy is just a word game. In reality most anarchists/libertarians just don't like taxes. And its true that excessive regulations can hinder the economy more than help it.

    But so can extremist views like anarchy.

    You will always have rules even in anarchy. You cannot for example just kill or rob people. Bow we are splitting hairs. Define government? Who said murder is illegal?

    I think its clear that since consumer responsibility is nessesary for a free market, a free market is thus impractical. People are simply not responsible. I highly doubt society will join hands and come together to boycott corrupt buisness by choice without government help. There is also knowledge to take into account. How can consumers be responsible if they don't know?

    Another good example is labeling of gmos and false advertizing in general.

    Fact is if the companies aren't forced to tell you exactly what's in the food, and if there aren't people checking this at an official level, people wont know. There wont be any consumer responsibility

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  19.  
    Regs happened because the market wasn't working, except for the capitalist class itself, its mouth pieces and other sundry bits.
     
    It's not me saying this, it's just what happened.
     
    Slaughtering striking miners who wanted safe working conditions would be a good example.  Woody Guthrie sang about this shit years ago.
     
    A current example is getting rid of DOT-111s rail cars.  If not mandated by the government, these dangerous cargo rail cars would still operate way past their expiry date.  I believe this is the rail car used in last year's massive rail disaster in Quebec that killed 50 plus and destroyed an entire town.
     
    Another example would be a mandated minimum liability insurance so companies are properly covered if an accident does happen.
     

Share This Page