The Non Aggression Principle vs Non Transgression Principle - Do Not Trespass - NAP VS NTP
The Non Aggression Principle vs Non Transgression Principle - Do Not Trespass
The Non Aggression Principle is the defacto assumed law that is assumed by voluntaryists and anarcho capitalists today. This principle is formally known as the NAP.
The NAP is a very interesting principle as it is usually thrown up into every instance of human interaction as the solution to an answer. It is a strong principle. One that does right most of the time, but it's imperfections must be exposed as it is not the only viable principle to build a voluntary society upon.
For centuries is has been established that aggression is in deed a bad thing. Unfortunately I believe that the focus on aggression with the non aggression principle has muddied the water and created a grey area of confusion. There cannot be grey areas to establish a peaceful and voluntary society.
Many people mistake aggression for other things. Let's look at the definition of aggression before we go any further.
ag·gres·sion
əˈɡreSHən/
noun
hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
"his chin was jutting with aggression"
the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a quarrel or war.
"the dictator resorted to armed aggression"
forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests.
Now let us examine some forms of aggression and determine whether or not it violates the NAP.
You are driving through a parking lot, a car backs up and hits your car when you are in motion. Did that automobile owner aggress upon you?
Some kids are playing baseball in a field next to your house. One of the kids hit a home run and the ball breaks your window. Did that kid aggress upon you?
The pharmacist mistakes a pill for another pill. The resulting situation that transpires is that the patient has an allergic reaction and becomes severely sick and dies. Did the pharmacist aggress upon the patient?
A drone operator launches a missile at what is perceived as a terrorist headquarters. Unfortunately , there is a family next door to that headquarters and their home is destroyed killing all inside. Was that aggression?
Did any of those three questions violate the non aggression principle?
Before I answer please clear your mind of preconceived notions and programming and prepare yourself for other solutions of which may be used as a more perfect way to build a voluntary society.
No.
Yes. I said "no". I can name a million other possible interactions where there is a damaged or injured party and they are also NOT covered in the non aggression principle.
Even the drone operator killing the innocent family who lived next to the terrorist headquarters did not indeed violate the non aggression principle. Why?
Because with aggression there must be intent. Intent to aggress. We cannot go around redefining definitions for our own liking. Aggression always has intent.
So how can we better formulate this unwritten law to better govern a voluntary society?
Many voluntaryists pick and choose which laws they respect. Ultimately all embrace the basic maxims of law established in the western world as natural law.
Such maxims can be summarized into life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Life. Life is your mind and body. It's the ultimate property to which you own. This is YOU. From your thoughts to your feelings. From your blood to your thought. The very electricity that moves through your brain is YOU. Your life. Your property.
Liberty is the measure of freedom that your property known as your life gets to enjoy. This can be little liberty or a lot of liberty. It's the measurement of freedom from restriction and control. Your liberty is Yours! It's also your property. Liberty or death... You can take my liberty wen you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Now let's look at happiness. The definition of happiness is:
"Happiness is a mental or emotional state of well-being defined by positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy. Happy mental states may also reflect judgements by a person about their overall well-being."
Happiness is property itself. It is yours as someone can take it from you. You can share your happiness or keep it to yourself. Happiness has outside environmental impacts such as family, relationships, society and natural weather to name a few. All can impact your level of happiness.
So it's been determined that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is YOUR property. Unless of course you think someone else owns it lets move on.
What do we see that applies to all three? Property. When someone abuses your property without your consent that is trespass. Let's look at the origin definition of trespass to get a better idea what trespass meant before it was contorted by fictions to apply to arbitrary organizations.
Origin and Etymology of trespass:
Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser
Transgress
1
: to violate a command or law :
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit
So it is said, that someone that is trespassing is indeed aggressing against the property owner. But what if there was no intent? That is wrong. Transgress is far more powerful in protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let me explain what the Non Transgression Principle means and why that is.
When the car accidentally hits you, they are at fault and must offer remedy. When the kid broke your window, although accidentally, the kids is at fault and must offer remedy. When the state blew up the innocents, they are at fault and must offer remedy.
This is why they call innocents dying in war collateral damage. Because they do indeed deprive those of their property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Remedy is coming to an agreement for reparation on the transgressed upon party. Reparation is the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.
You do not indeed need to aggress to transgress upon another's natural rights. You can still deprive people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness accidentally.
This is why this Maxim of law established in the Middle Ages was to protect one's property. Even North Korea has it enshrined that citizens will have the right to grow their own food free from transgression. Does not mean they obey this principle... just that they recognize it as a natural right.
Ultimately, transgression and trespass can happen when there is no intent. Courts were created to mediate as third parties between two parties that could not come up with and agreement on restitution and reparations.
Property rights. This is the sole and most important right of all rights. A voluntary society that does not protect property rights has indeed a foundational flaw.
There are two types of trespasses. One is criminal. That is intentional aggressive trespass. The other is unintentional and accidental trespass.
Both cause damage. Both must be addressed. Both damage life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A neighbor who plays loud music at all times of the night does indeed trespass against your happiness do they not?
They may not intentionally want to disturb you. They do not want to make your life stressful. Yet they do!
The foundation of all laws can be traced back to property rights.
One law to self govern all of a voluntary society.
Do not trespass.
The Non Transgression Principle does not mean that trespass will never occur. It is just a foundational guide for which a voluntary societal order can be established.
Conflicts are born when trespasses are not resolved. Property boundaries are important and the boundaries of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness must have well defined restrictions from others transgressing against you.
Living by this principle does not mean that we will live in a utopia free from trespass both criminal and accidental. What it means is that we are prepared to solve such trespasses against us.
Some trespasses will require a great deal of forgiveness. Some will require very little. In the end forgiveness always has a price. Forgiveness is the willingness for the damaged party to forgive trespasses against them.
Now, think about what maxims of law, whether decreed by the state, the constitutions, the social construct of society today...
Think about which ones you like. Right to defend yourself. Right to be left alone. Right to worship who you will. Right to speech and right to privacy...
Name me one of these rights you hold dear and close as something that government does not give but you are born with under natural law. Name just one that does not fall under the non transgression principle.
Finally, the Non Aggression Principle is based upon grey areas of speculation. The Non Transgression Principle is based upon areas of fact. You do not want to build a voluntary society upon areas of the unknown and unseen.
This is why states and fictions always attempt to take away ownership of individuals. It is why cryptocurrency is one of the many solutions to the problems of the world. My bitcoin is mine. It is no one else's and the state cannot trespass against it.
All laws in a voluntary society can be based upon one law. The supreme law. The natural law. The law that pertains to all things. Stronger than any other principle. The first block of defense against intentional and unintentional transgression....
Do Not Trespass.
-----------------END----------------------
Written By Keith Smith
The Nexus Project: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=657601.0
If you like what you read here give me an upvote.
If you disagree or would like to invite me to expand upon this principle, please comment below.
I am always open to ideas and better formulating my perspective in the world.
This is a great discussion, but you left out "microaggressions...".
Kidding.
Thanks for this contribution.
Looking forward to more!
Thank you. I know I will get a lot of flack for this subject but I am a strong believer in market anarchism and property rights. I always define my interactions with others by if I am trespassing or not.
While I appreciate the post and discussion of the two principles, you have not adequately represented what the non-aggression principle is. Within the principle, it defines its terms. Aggression is not defined as the somewhat vague, textbook definition that is presented here.
Also, the non-aggression principle is formulated on the basis of accepting the concept of self-ownership and private property as a natural extension of it. So, in the examples that you cited, the perpetrators can certainly be held accountable because their actions were actually "aggression" against the victims, even though they were not intentional acts. In the sense of the NAP, the aggression is judged based on the act against the person or the property, not the intent of the actor. That's a key distinction to be made and it's why the dictionary definition isn't used in the principle.
But the NAP isn't meant to be the sole principle of a given society. It is meant to be understood in conjunction with self-ownership and individual property rights. In any case, it is of course important to open these discussions and to flesh them out in order to improve them, so good job in helping with that.
Would you argue that freedom should be defined simply as being free? Should there be massive and complicated law books filled with definitions or can we generally agree everything falls into property rights and trespassing. I am asking this because simplicity should be the easiest way to Bring people into voluntarism. Not complex definitions. I am pretty sure all voluntaryists agree on not trespassing. It should be an easier and more marketable solution to bringing more people to a voluntary society IMHO.
No. I'm saying that the non-aggression principle is based on property rights. So, trespassing falls under its purview.
Now, there is certainly a lot of debate as to how much of a violation trespassing actually is and how it ought to be handled. And, like any other violation, there are degrees of it and there are debates about whether or not the definitions are adequate. I don't like to get bogged down in semantics, especially when the concepts being discussed are usually the same.
Whether we call trespassing aggression or transgression doesn't change the fact that the property owner's rights have been compromised and that they indeed have a legitimate complaint against the trespasser. Ultimately, no matter which word you choose, you're going to have to base it on individual rights of life and property. As long as those are adequately defined and explained, then the violations of them can be properly judged. And the NAP or NTP are the guidelines for what constitutes a violation of rights.
That's true - Among people familiar with the use of the term in this context, this is no problem. But the ancap use of the term Aggression is misaligned with mainstream understanding of what the term denotes. I think this is at best a barrier to understanding for non-initiates, and at worst, a misleading term to use. The Non-transgression Principle looks like a superior alternative without these problems.
This is a really well thought out article. Many anarchists seem to take the NAP as the be-all and end-all of morality when there are so many issues that it does not cover.
It is a good starting place, but more must be considered and you've done a good job that.
Thank you Seth. I would not address this subject if I felt it was not needed.
Silver Rule is my guide. -Dave
It would hard to define your property, what if my finger is 1 milimeter inside your property does that count? What if my fingernail is 1 nanometer inside your property? What then?
I think the trespassing definition is a bit silly.
Do you mind if I just take a little bit of your freedom away?
No I don't, just don't make it repeat.
I don't care if I lose 1$, but I do care if you add an 1$ extra tax to all my spending.
Taxes are not always aggression if they are voluntary and most statist argue they have good intent. I mean... who would not want roads lol.... But if you can be taxed on your property, is it your property and are you being trespassed upon?
Taxes by definiton are agression. If it's voluntary you don't call it tax, you call it donation or subscription fee.
A tax is an extortion mechanism that is funding an immoral enterprise.
Taxing my property is obviously an agression, unless I agree to some service, but that is then a subscription not a tax. I don't agree to property tax specifically, but I can't unsubscribe, I am forced to pay it.
Absolutely agree. Thanks for this post. And for the term Non Transgression Principle, to me it seems like a much better alternative to NAP with regard to clear communication and accuracy.
There's one issue with the principle: how do you define property? Sometimes is not truly clear.
Imagine my father was a slave owner. He made a fortune out of it and I inherited it. I don't own slaves anynore, but is my property really mine? Is the non transgression principle applicable or the sons of the slaves have a right to get back what was potentially theirs?
Another example: a company makes a lot of money thanks to government regulations that prevents fair competition. Is the NTP still valid in this case?
In any case, for the NTP to work it is necessary to define very clearly what property is and what is not. Otherwise it has the same flaws you find in the NAP.
imo this isn't a problem with the principle (qua principle), but a problem with knowing how to implement it in certain situations. This problem applies equally to the 'Non Aggression Principle' too, with the extra disadvantage that the terminology is more confusing.
My hunch is that it would likely be treated as yours (until someone who can demonstrate a better claim than you shows up. For instance a descendant of one of the slaves. Incidentally all ownership claims are contingent like this: We say 'owner', assuming for now you have the best claim to ownership of this thing, but remaining open to the possibility that someone with a better claim might show up.
Both.
I'm not saying that NAP is better than NTP. Both have limitations. Sometimes it's not easy to distinguish what is agression and what is not or what is transgression and what is not.
Nevertheless, I'm still not convinced that NTP is a better option. For instance, if I could only stop an agression from your side by violating your property, what takes precedence from an ethical point of view? It's not really clear to me, although I suspect that putting an end to the agression entitles me to violate your property. But the opposite is true as well. In the end, transgression is a form of aggression. So, not sure this is adding anything meaninful (besides adding a twist to the NAP in order to make it even more appealing for anarcho-capitalists).
That wouldn't be a violation. At least the Rothbardian take, as I understand it, is that the use of defensive force is permitted, and not a transgression or violation (subject to the principle of proportionality). Or another way of looking at it, the (would be) violator of another's rights forfeits a measure of his own property rights when doing so.
I'm in favour of dropping that way of using the term aggression altogether, for the reasons mentioned in this article.
I'd say it makes it's a more accurate as well as more understandable term, with no disadvantages that I can think of that aren't also shared by the NAP term. That's already a big win imo.
I like the idea, but I am not quite convinced. You interpret the NAP according to a dictionary definition of aggression. If we do the same for the NTP, will people be any clearer about what nontransgression means? Transgressive has come to mean anything that makes people surprised or uncomfortable.
I'm very sympathetic to the idea that what makes sense about libertarianism or anarchocapitalism can be captured as a theory of property. I'm not sure we can fit it into a sound bite.
At first look seems just semantic, but now it seems much more useful. Im working around NTP or Non Damage Principle, but in spahish :)
http://fileaesir.com/anarquismo-y-minarquismo-hoy/