Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment (Read 2658 times)
JW
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 385
Joined: Jul 4th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #10 - Sep 13th, 2014 at 6:58pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 4:03pm:
For NAP to work in your scenario, the end of the story would go more like:
The Upstream Neighbor replies "Gee, you're absolutely right!  I hadn't considered that. Here's what I'll do. I'll hire a construction company to build a proper dam made of reinforced concrete which complies with building codes. It will have a spillway which will restore the water flow to your property. And you no longer need flood insurance."


As I put in the story, there is seepage and not much water to begin with.  So the cost of sealing the bottom of the lake would be prohibitive.  In general, a home made earthen dam loses a certain amount of water to evaporation, and also to ground seepage.  So the water that flows in is not equal to the water that flows out.

Anyway, in real life, the owner of the property did NOT say this.  In fact, the owner of the dam did not take any of the actions that were suggested to him. 

I'm describing a story about a real life situation that actually happened.  In the real life version the dam builder did not back down, even after being approached several times.

So in real life, what solution does NAP have?
« Last Edit: Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:34pm by JW »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JW
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 385
Joined: Jul 4th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #11 - Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:23pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 3:49pm:
As far as someone trying to claim ownership of rainfall, streams, etc, the Lockean proviso would apply, which says basically that anyone may appropriate whatever land and natural resources they can use, as long as "enough and as good" is left for others. Clearly not met by the guy in your example.


In my example, I indicate that because of seepage, all water is lost.  So there is definitely not "enough and as good" is left for others.  Even when picking up acorns, there is not "enough and as good" after a large number of acorn pickers stop through, so I have a problem with Locke on that.  It is notable that Rothbard misquotes Locke in this spot, skipping the "providing there is enough". 

Alan Jones wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 3:49pm:
No. The defensive force used to prevent aggression should be "as gentle as possible" or "the minimum necessary" depending on which libertarian you ask.


Can you direct me to a resource (book or author) who indicates NAP "defense" has an appropriate size.  That within the confines of NAP that this size of defense is either agreed between parties or enforceable in some way.

And also, since the dam builder is now dead, isn't the problem solved?  Who is left to "defend" the dam builder?  Indeed, who was there to protect him?

I'm not really against NAP.  I'm just trying to figure out whether it is an unrealistic fantasy, or something that can be actualized in real life.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #12 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:44am
Print Post  
JW wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:23pm:
In my example, I indicate that because of seepage, all water is lost.  So there is definitely not "enough and as good" is left for others.  Even when picking up acorns, there is not "enough and as good" after a large number of acorn pickers stop through, so I have a problem with Locke on that.

You disagree with Locke on that? So you think a single person should be able to claim all acorns without leaving "enough and as good" for others?

Or do you think that no person should be able to claim any acorns even if they leave "enough and as good" for others?

Which way do you disagree with him?

JW wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:23pm:
Can you direct me to a resource (book or author) who indicates NAP "defense" has an appropriate size.

I'm not sure what you're asking, since the NAP itself doesn't dictate how much force is appropriate to defend against aggression. But in your example, the force used (shooting the neighbor) was, by definition, not defensive force at all.

JW wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:23pm:
I'm not really against NAP.  I'm just trying to figure out whether it is an unrealistic fantasy, or something that can be actualized in real life.

LOL, are you unaware that the NAP is essentially enforced in the U.S. against everyone except government, which exempts only itself? You think it's an unrealistic fantasy for government to refrain from that which it prohibits anyone else from doing?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JW
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 385
Joined: Jul 4th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #13 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:28pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:44am:
You disagree with Locke on that? So you think a single person should be able to claim all acorns without leaving "enough and as good" for others?


I agree with Locke.  Here's Locke:
Quote:
Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.


Here's Rothbard quoting Locke:
Quote:
[E]very man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to. . . .


Rothbard omits the phrase "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others"

In Locke's world, resources were infinite.  It was easy for him to imagine unlimited abundance.  Rothbard knows quite well, as we do, that most resources are finite.  That over harvesting fish, or grain; that mining gold or polluting the ocean does not leave "enough and as good" for others.

So what I was pointing out is the important discrepancy between Locke and Rothbard with regard to the right to make your personal property out of something that you pick up something in the state of nature.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42631
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #14 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:33pm
Print Post  
JW wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:28pm:
In Locke's world, resources were infinite.  It was easy for him to imagine unlimited abundance.  Rothbard knows quite well, as we do, that most resources are finite.  That over harvesting fish, or grain; that mining gold or polluting the ocean does not leave "enough and as good" for others.

This is the tragedy of the commons. Rights to private property are the solution. And BTW, Locke wasn't stupid. He never imagined that the worlds resources were infinite.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JW
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 385
Joined: Jul 4th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #15 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:44pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:44am:
Are you unaware that the NAP is essentially enforced in the U.S. against everyone except government, which exempts only itself?


I'm unaware of this.

Can you give me an example of US Government making the first move of Aggression?  I'm well aware that if you commit fraud, violence, theft or vandalism, a government agent may make defensive moves (punitive moves) against you.

I definitely can see Ferguson, but that is currently being litigated so if there is a non-defensive aggressor the right response to the possible NAP violation is TBD.

There are a few cases of "you can't sue the government", based on the government committing fraud and passing a law that you can't take action against it.  This could easily be rectified by allowing you to sue the government.  I don't think this is what you are hinting at.

But I'm looking for something structural.  Why government as a whole must violate NAP.

Or as I wrote elsewhere, what change is necessary to make government, should you keep it an not go into anarchy, compliant with NAP?

NAP by itself seems inadequate to running a realistic society.  One party says "you aggressed against me".  The other party says "No, I didn't".  The first party shoots the second party.  What then?  Is the dispute over?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MaxHen
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 158
Joined: Aug 31st, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #16 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:43pm
Print Post  
JW wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:44pm:
I'm unaware of this.

Can you give me an example of US Government making the first move of Aggression?  I'm well aware that if you commit fraud, violence, theft or vandalism, a government agent may make defensive moves (punitive moves) against you.

Taxation is aggressive theft. However, going by your posts in other threads, you seem to believe that taxation is somehow non-aggressive. Please explain why.

Quote:
There are a few cases of "you can't sue the government", based on the government committing fraud and passing a law that you can't take action against it.  This could easily be rectified by allowing you to sue the government.  I don't think this is what you are hinting at.

First of all, you really expect an institution (the government) to sit in judgment on ITSELF and provide an unbiased decision?

Also, even if an institution provides you with restitution for its previous aggression against you, that institution is still criminal if that restitution is funded by further aggression against others. Since the state is funded by aggressive taxation, any restitution it may provide to those wronged by it necessarily constitutes further wrongdoing.

Of course, you don't consider taxation to be aggressive, so this goes back to the question in the first paragraph of my post.

Quote:

But I'm looking for something structural.  Why government as a whole must violate NAP.

Because the defining characteristic of a government is the power to tax. Taxation is inherently aggressive, meaning that all governments are therefore inherently aggressive as well. Again, this goes back to the first paragraph of this post.

Quote:
Or as I wrote elsewhere, what change is necessary to make government, should you keep it an not go into anarchy, compliant with NAP?

Impossible. If any government altered itself to become compliant with the NAP, it would cease to be a government and would be the same as any private organization.

Quote:
NAP by itself seems inadequate to running a realistic society.  One party says "you aggressed against me".  The other party says "No, I didn't".  The first party shoots the second party.  What then?  Is the dispute over?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/10/stefan-molyneux/the-stateless-society-an-exam...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10011
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #17 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:29pm
Print Post  
JW wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 6:58pm:
I'm describing a story about a real life situation that actually happened.  In the real life version the dam builder did not back down, even after being approached several times.

So in real life, what solution does NAP have?


NAP is a fundamental principle accepted by all Libertarians. If someone does not accept it, they are not a Libertarian. Simple as that. Had one or both of the neighbors in your story been a Libertarian, the Upstream Neighbor would not have been murdered.

NAP doesn't have a "solution". It's a rational principle of ethics and liberty.  Those who accept it (NAP) apply it in their "real-life" actions.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #18 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:53pm
Print Post  
JW wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:28pm:
I agree with Locke.

Oh, I must have been mislead by you saying "I have a problem with Locke on that." Did you mean to say Rothbard instead of Locke?

JW wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:28pm:
In Locke's world, resources were infinite.  It was easy for him to imagine unlimited abundance.

Nonsense. Natural resources that we can access today are far more abundant than in 1690.

Locke's political philosophy was obviously tailored specifically to a world with limited resources.

JW wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:44pm:
Can you give me an example of US Government making the first move of Aggression?

Is that a joke?

OK, I'll bite, anyway: Economic regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, minimum wage laws, gun control, drug laws. All examples of government initiating force against citizens.

What planet are you from, again?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9688
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Reply #19 - Sep 15th, 2014 at 1:20am
Print Post  
I think when most people say aggression, they mean punching someone in the face to get what you want, not sending a bill, which you voluntarily pay.

I also think the original question was valid and realistic. The only good answer to these sorts of questions is the one Jeff keeps posting about Common Law (a system of precedent) which I've researched a little. Not all libertarians believe in this, though.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › NAP, Judgement and Appropriate punishment
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy