Non-Aggression Principle: NAP : Conundrums : Resolutions : Thoughts
Recently @thatgermandude has been poking at me about NAP. He wants to deconstruct it and challenge it and asked me if I have a specific post I've written about it. I haven't written a specific post about NAP before until now. It's pretty short and simple. It becomes complex when you wrestle mentally with it. It is something that people like me try to ponder the implications of regularly as well. It is a simple enough concept that it has appeared as a relevant talking point in other posts. Those posts were about more than NAP, but the non-aggression principle did have some relevance to them.
Before I get too far. NAP is not the same as the "Golden Rule" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The latter statement there consider from the mind of a sado-masochist and it isn't a pretty thought. I have always liked that golden rule, but one day I realized that some people might want people to do some things to them that most people wouldn't approve of. That rule doesn't really take that into consideration. It thus, is more of a collectivist view that works as long as people mostly think the same way. I still like what the intent of the phrase was, but it has flaws. Most things do.
Non-Aggression Principle
Do not initiate force against another except in self defense of self, or your property. This is often extended to the defense of those who have force initiated against them that cannot defend themselves.
That's pretty much it.
The key is INITIATE. That is known as aggression.
The idealistic concept (which I myself embrace) is that if people were not initiating force against others that there would not be much call for considering this. It is idealistic.
That is pretty much it. Not much to say beyond that as far as defining it. It is when we think about it, what if it, and prognosticate upon what could happen that it becomes deep and challenging.
Conundrums
The biggest problems I have been wrestling with in regards to NAP for some time have been based around scope. How far out from myself do I look when considering the initiation of force?
Many people that practice the NAP really only pay attention to what is in their immediate vicinity and often only that which they can see themselves near where they are at. This I believe is a natural way to view it. Yet, it has big problems and leaves the person vulnerable.
If politicians in the government center are passing laws that are going to force you to pay a huge fee to keep your land, or perhaps just passing a law to take it from you anyway. If you only watch the close proximity then by the time you are aware of it it is likely too late for you to do anything about it.
This is what I call scope. Yet, it could also be called range.
My recent issues have been with considering that scope. The NAP doesn't restrict scope in anyway. We do that to ourselves.
Resolution
There are two ways that I can think of at the moment to view any ideological concept. We can apply it to our ideal view of the future, and say how it would work there. We can apply it to our current day REAL world.
Often when speaking of ideologies such as NAP, Anarchy, Socialism, etc we are applying them mentally as though that ideal world exists, and is functional. This is the bane of ideologies. There are paths which must be walked and challenges which must be met to reach those places. That doesn't mean they are wrong, and it doesn't mean they are right. Though they could be wrong for now and current reality.
Today while I was typing to @thatgermandude in a comment I had a realization that resolved my current internal struggles with the NAP. The realization is why I wrote this post.
I was considering scope. I was self-imposing limitations on the NAP which are not in the statement itself.
I therefore, now understand I can apply the NAP to the current day reality.
The people that are initiating force to manipulate the world and me directly, my property directly, and against others I am completely justified in my own mind in self-defense, and defense of others against them.
Voluntary choices I cannot challenge. Involuntary ones I can. The NAP remains. This frees me mentally to realize the things I've felt I should be resisting (with force if appropriate) that I was thinking do they fit with NAP. If what I am challenging is the initiation of force against someone, or their property then it fits. NOTE: INITIATION is the key word.
Do not initiate force against another except in self defense of self, or your property.
I beg to differ. (semantics..but words mean things...let's use the proper words)
There is no except, using force in defense of yourself or your property is NOT initiation...it's more on the order of retaliation. Unless you want to be dishonest (like governments) and talk about provocation. Lately the Social Justice Bullies have been using the word trigger as a synonym for provoke.
For example
Sally said " Johnny oogled me. I felt unsafe. I was triggered. He provoked me to shoot him 97 times, burn the body and spread the ashes. It was self defense. He might have raped me."
Point taken. I agree. Thank you for the correction.
gasp!!
Sweet! I appreciate the way your mind works! I just posted an article you might call "how to make the NAP practical."
https://steemit.com/voluntaryism/@scottermonkey/law-without-government
Try to eat without harming anything. You can't. Even cells have consciousness and feel pain.
So, when trying to apply the NAP, you have to give yourself a lot of wiggle room. Such as, the most aggressive thing anyone can do is give birth. It changes everything from that point forward. One more mouth to feed, one more house to build, 13 KwH of energy per day need to be provided. It is easily the most aggressive thing a person can do.
If you have a workshop, and you build wonderful, needed things, are you helping society, or being aggressive? You are using power saws and hammers, and those air disturbances they cause, cause many others to feel pain.
The person out in nature meditating is bothered by the motorcyclist out enjoying nature.
The NAP is a nice rule of thumb. However, defending it is really difficult. Because often, we don't really know what is wrong, nor do we know a good solution to it. But, even though we may not be able to put it into words, even a dog knows when it is being beaten.
That's just silly. We only include human beings in NAP.
Mhhh I think I see where some of our misunderstanding was coming from. And yeah thanks for this, it will help my deconstruction :).
Since you argued before that you should lead by example, I thought the NAP is something that you apply (to some extent) in your everyday live already since I do aswell see my political values as something that stem from and are in harmony with my "normal live" actions.
Like you said under a certain scope I would agree on the NAP, my crusade against modern day corporate capitalism is based on the believe that I have the natural right to speak out against this oppressive system and destroy it if I see a feasable chance and alternative.
Depending on the scope of the NAP you can either justify total political apathy. As long as you are not violently attacked and can maintain moderate personal wealth, everything is great. You could also justify an authority of logic that claims to make laws based on the NAP and similar principles. Or you could justify total anarchism which will most likely lead to the rule of the strongest.
Maybe a question on a more specific example: What is your stance on killing someone for standing on your property? It seems like many libertarians see his as part of the deal, while I see an absolute inappropriate reaction to an act, that while unlawful should not be punishable by death.
It depends on the circumstance. That is a personal question more than a hard and fast "this is how everyone does it".
I would offer challenge first, and depending upon the response it would escalate from there. A case where I would not offer challenge and would just act first would be if I recognized or could identify the person standing upon my property. In some cases danger from them could be immediately known and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them.
If I was the type that would shoot for such transgressions on property outside of my house then I'd make sure that was clearly posted. Yet that is my choice. I cannot say others would do the same.
Very thought-provoking post. How appropriate that @thatgermandude would be the instigator!
One issue I have with the NAP you have pointed out, but I think not entirely resolved. Force is initiated by various means. If a mugger brandishes a knife and demands our brand new Nike shoes, then we easily categorize that as force.
However, if Jeff Sessions starts seizing peoples property, as he has been crowing about, then that also is force. You point this out.
What I feel is lacking in the NAP is an obligation to oppose force. If you can successfully do so, you have a moral obligation to defeat enemies of free people, when they attack you.
By doing so, we make the world a freer place.
The caveat is 'if you can successfully do so', and that is usually guesswork.
Thanks!
I agree with this except one thing. NAP is anti-forcing people to do things. If they don't give a shit, then it is their right to not give a shit. Yet it is also the right of people to notice and remember this and choose not to do business with them, or to make contracts with them less favorable than they might be if the person one someone they could count on to have the backs of others.
I believe that is resolved regardless of the NAP, but then it depends upon what society exists.
In this day and age I hope they would wake up and join with us, because they see the common enemy that is applying force, stripping rights, and increasing oppression.
I agree completely. I would point out that you seem to have shown yourself to be a highly moral person. Your caveat, that if folks feel no moral obligation they cannot be forced to undertake actions stemming therefrom, is as true as it gets, yet that you would make such objection indicates that you feel compelled by moral obligation.
There are those that state the NAP in amoral mindsets, from what they consider to be 'pure reason', rather than morality. I consider absence of morals defective, myself, and have to wonder whether folks that consider the NAP simply an expression of self interest might abandon it - and any other principle - were it profitable to do so.
I would not state an obligation to be force. Yet failure to meet an obligation, to be free, to prevent another from being enslaved, or not to enslave another, can actually be a criminal act, depending on circumstances.
Thanks!
I try and use a NAP in my personal life,But struggle because I am so well aware of the active war against humanity by the less than 1% and corp. Greed machine.
I would rather the shoe was on our foot instead,stomping out corruption,and greed!
If we sit and do nothing ,while they plan and act ,we become the reason that tyranny triumphs.
Albert Einstein's said it well, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph , is for good men to do nothing."
We need to start using Jujutsu,or Judo. Using the force of the opponent against them self .... standing and doing nothing and we are just punching bags, or put into body bags....
....no#discussion tag? ;-)
namaste!
I keep forgetting about the #discussion tag. I need to learn. ;)
That was my realization. If there is evidence they are using force by corruption or laws with no victim against you then they are initiating force. It can definitely be deemed aggressive. So we are justified in self defense.
Not legally.
That is the sad part!
What needs to be addressed! Bankers, lawmakers,Corporations,and politician that are above the law.
I've never heard of this principle before is this your own? Interesting point about ideologies in a non perfect world. Sometimes the most beautiful life practices can be like putting a silk hat on a pig because of the state of our culture. Actually I've just re read what you said about that and I'm not sure you meant that but my silk hat comparison stands :-) thanks for a great post.
No it is a core principle at many forms of Anarchy. Anarcho-Capitalism (sometimes called Voluntaryism) is essentially the NAP combined with FREE MARKET.
The flaw is not what it seems at all. The rule does have exceptions, like all rules and laws do.
You have watched for the exception, and all you needed to do was to state it as is implied in the rule itself. A) This rule is about Justice and all justice derives from Consent, it cannot condone Injustice, no matter how interpreted, all arguments as such are equivocation and contrary to the basic of law, or consent, it cannot condone or prescribe that which is unjust.
The only exception to that exception is if another sado-masochist started out of the blue, attacking and brutalizing another sado-masochist then the Golden rule still applies and without exception, or an exception to an exception/rule.
The only problem is that the people you are so justified defending against hold several pieces of paper with your and your parent's consent on them, un-rebutted.
Have you ever researched the historical evolution of that golden rule?
If not. You should.
It's interesting.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead and many other writings have variations on it that predate the biblical version.
Some of them don't have this particular EXCEPTION. :) In other words, they deliver the same message yet they've made the exception not an issue with them based upon how they word it.
Perhaps I like it when someone stomps on my foot.
So if I want people to stomp on my foot I should stomp on theirs.
I do not believe that was the intention. Thus, why I stated it was a flaw. For if this is an exception then such exceptions can be infinite.
The principle that this all works on is Consent, it doesn't matter if you use a rule or an exception to the rule to override or subvert consent, it doesn't matter because you invalidated any lawfulness the rule or exception had by using it to carry out unlawfulness since consent is required for any lawful act, from all parties involved.
When you like to get your foot stomped, or eye poked, this is clearly brutality to any reasonable, sensible individual as it constitutes harm and hurt, and exactly as no creature enjoys harm or hurt so does the vast variety of man. It's irrelevant if you like to stick your hand in the fire and watch it cook, because without consent it doesn't matter what Law or Rule says, it's not going to change the fact that you did something WITHOUT consent and Generally Against the preference of the other party. The only way you could reciprocate that rationally is if you were brutalized and enjoyed it, without your consent, and then you could without any uncertainty use the golden rule as the basis for reciprocating that brutalizing joy someone forced onto you.
It's one exception, it doesn't matter that there can be an infinity of exceptions based on that because invariably all those exceptions are consensual. The law cannot condone that which is unlawful, the law is written in a specific context and with a specific function in mind and if it excuses unlawfulness it must do so with clear moral, Lawful, Reason (self defense is an exception to thou shall not kill).
What is the translated equivalent for the Golden Rule from the Egyptian Book of the Dead though?
A good explanation of NAP, and I have a clearer view of it
The more I read of it, the more I seem to agree with it.
I understand the application of range or scope, and agree with that understanding; kind of a key point for me
a good point
You should not struggle, you did make the good choices, and act accordingly. Thats the best you could do. Now I take a nab.
Struggling in my mind makes my mind stronger. :) At least I think it does. ;) I could always be wrong.