Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible (Read 1083 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5233
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Jun 6th, 2017 at 11:00pm
Print Post  
No one can ever have a right to harm someone who is not using initiatory force - aggression - against another.

Yet there is supposedly a positive right to self-defend when one is being threatened.

If the person threatening us is an innocent - perhaps he's the carrier of some horrible, deadly disease - the NAP says we can't hurt him. If he wants to move in next door, he can do so. The best we can do is sue him if we catch his ailment. The trouble is, the disease is Ebola. No one's going to be left to sue.

Another way we could be threatened by an innocent is if we are female and carrying a pregnancy which threatens our life. As long as we assume the pro-life stance - that it is a person, with rights - we cannot remove it even to save our lives because the fetus does not aggress.

Self-defence is incompatible with the NAP in yet an additional way; it allows for the preemptive defence of the self against someone merely posing a credible threat, like someone pointing a loaded gun at you. The trouble with this is: If you don't let him shoot, because you attack first and prevent him from shooting, you're the aggressor. You used force. He didn't. You initiated force. End of story.

There's no two ways about this.

Yes, I'm aware some libertarian philosophers have posited that threats of force are force. This is simply not the case any more than my threatening to eat your food causes it to appear inside my belly. Attempting to define something that does not use force as force is dishonest and contributes to the decay of language.

Words mean things, and one cannot define threatening to do something as doing that thing. (Unless it already qualifies, like threatening to make a threat.)
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4720
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #1 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 1:41am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 6th, 2017 at 11:00pm:
Self-defence is incompatible with the NAP in yet an additional way; it allows for the preemptive defence of the self against someone merely posing a credible threat, like someone pointing a loaded gun at you.

NAP applies when rational. Outside of this, it becomes moot,  as with everything else.

There are no absolutes. Even with Libertarianism.  Everything must be measured.

Common sense is something we should embrace; not something to be feared or mystified.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2108
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #2 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 9:02am
Print Post  
Why do people read the wikipedia page on the NAP, then think they understand it?

Self-defense is 100% compatible with the NAP. The NAP is about justified use of force, not pacifism, not exclusive to being reactionary either.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5233
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #3 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 9:16pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 9:02am:
Why do people read the wikipedia page on the NAP, then think they understand it?


Because it's actually very, very simple.

And FYI, I've read a lot more than the Wikipedia page.

Don't aggress. It's that easy. And don't think the fact that self-defence is a positive right (and therefore a fake right like the right to health care or the right to food) has slipped by me.

It's this easy: If you prevent him from shooting you, you are not reacting. You are aggressing. There's nothing that actually happened anywhere but inside your own head for you to react to.

When is the use of force justified? When it's not initiatory. When you act first, it's initiatory.

The only justified use of force is to strip aggressors of property they have stolen.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2108
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #4 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:23pm
Print Post  
Copy and pasting this to confirm reading comprehension.
The NAP is about justified use of force, not pacifism, not exclusive to being reactionary either.

The term is not simplified to not using aggression. That is, no pun intended, misconstrued by oppositions to these views. If you can justify aggression, you are 100% compliant with the NAP. And if the NAP inspires whatever legal framework, then if you are not justified but use aggression, then as close to a just punishment is supposed to be granted in return. In other words, maybe you THINK you are justified in some aggression, but you are one side of a story, but even with that mistake, the punishment for whatever actions also must remain as just as possible.

It's a libertarian term, because it is contrary to an aggression concept. Things like Might makes right. Which at no point is claimed to be psychology that can be eliminated, but a principle to vet egalitarianism with praxeology.

Wait, before I waste my valuable time discussing a topic that has been purposefully misconstrued by the OP for years(obvious cognitive dissonance), let's start here. You claim you have read a "lot more" about the NAP. Well, what exactly?

Also, self-defense is a negative right. Whether laws grant it or not, doesn't change the fact that all people can practice/use self-defense.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5233
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #5 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:46pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:23pm:
Wait, before I waste my valuable time discussing a topic that has been purposefully misconstrued by the OP for years(obvious cognitive dissonance), let's start here. You claim you have read a "lot more" about the NAP. Well, what exactly?


How about the book that popularised praxeology: Human Action. I've also read Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto.

They don't discuss the NAP by name but it's clear it's a guiding principle.

Crystallas wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:23pm:
Copy and pasting this to confirm reading comprehension.
The NAP is about justified use of force, not pacifism, not exclusive to being reactionary either.


I can copy and paste too.

If that person hasn't done anything to you, you are "reacting" to nothing.

That gunman's rights are inviolable, just like yours. They're intrinsic, just like yours.

When do you have a positive right to attack him and violate his rights because of what you think he's going to do?

You even admit you don't! Someone who guesses wrong and reacts to someone who wasn't going to shoot them ought to be punished.

The only trouble is that having been going to does not equal did! If you shoot him first, you are guilty of initiatory force and he is not, no matter what supposedly would have happened. It didn't happen. That's all that matters.

Yes I'm being incredibly strict and unforgiving and impractical with the philosophy. Skychief is entirely correct. I just think there are theories of rights out there (mine for example) that don't have these flaws when taken to extremes, which yes, is what I'm doing.

Crystallas wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:23pm:
The term is not simplified to not using aggression. That is, no pun intended, misconstrued by oppositions to these views. If you can justify aggression, you are 100% compliant with the NAP.


Aggression is initiatory force and is never justified. You can justify force, if it's legitimately defensive (as in, he already did something to you, and even then it must be proportionate), but aggression you cannot.

Crystallas wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:23pm:
Also, self-defense is a negative right. Whether laws grant it or not, doesn't change the fact that all people can practice/use self-defense.


You're confusing positive/negative rights with the way in which rights are granted. No, rights do not come from the government. They're intrinsic. They come from god if you happen to believe in god. If you don't, they're just intrinsic and that's the end of it.

Positive rights do not exist. You don't have a positive right to use your chainsaw howsoever you like because that would give you a right to lop off a man's head.

What you have is a negative right - a right not to be interfered with when using your chainsaw provided you do not violate anyone else's rights.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2108
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #6 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 12:02am
Print Post  
*sigh*

Wake me up when you read a book on NAP. If you're not willing to invest the time, then why should I?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 3355
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #7 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 9:46am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 6th, 2017 at 11:00pm:
No one can ever have a right to harm someone who is not using initiatory force - aggression - against another.

Yet there is supposedly a positive right to self-defend when one is being threatened.

If the person threatening us is an innocent - perhaps he's the carrier of some horrible, deadly disease - the NAP says we can't hurt him. If he wants to move in next door, he can do so. The best we can do is sue him if we catch his ailment. The trouble is, the disease is Ebola. No one's going to be left to sue.

Another way we could be threatened by an innocent is if we are female and carrying a pregnancy which threatens our life. As long as we assume the pro-life stance - that it is a person, with rights - we cannot remove it even to save our lives because the fetus does not aggress.

Self-defence is incompatible with the NAP in yet an additional way; it allows for the preemptive defence of the self against someone merely posing a credible threat, like someone pointing a loaded gun at you. The trouble with this is: If you don't let him shoot, because you attack first and prevent him from shooting, you're the aggressor. You used force. He didn't. You initiated force. End of story.

There's no two ways about this.

Yes, I'm aware some libertarian philosophers have posited that threats of force are force. This is simply not the case any more than my threatening to eat your food causes it to appear inside my belly. Attempting to define something that does not use force as force is dishonest and contributes to the decay of language.

Words mean things, and one cannot define threatening to do something as doing that thing. (Unless it already qualifies, like threatening to make a threat.)


If someone puts you under imminent threat (e.g., aiming a gun at you), it's not a "positive right" to defend yourself.  They chose to put you in peril, it's a pure negative right to do so.

Also, it depends what you mean by defending yourself.  There is a dramatic difference between say exterminating Muslims in this country and deporting threats such as non-citizen attendees of Mosques who are openly calling for violence against America.
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
merkelstan
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 686
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2017
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #8 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 12:31pm
Print Post  
It's the same f_cking discussion all over again.  I'm not replying to The_Trollposition anymore and neither should you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5233
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Reply #9 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 9:35pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jun 8th, 2017 at 9:46am:
If someone puts you under imminent threat (e.g., aiming a gun at you), it's not a "positive right" to defend yourself.  They chose to put you in peril, it's a pure negative right to do so.


You never have a right to violate someone else's rights. This is why rights are negative.

And rights are absolute. They're intrinsic.

When does that gunman lose his right not to be harmed?

Never. Nothing he does can deprive him of it.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › NAP and Self-Defence Incompatible
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy