Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › loophole in the NAP?
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) loophole in the NAP? (Read 157 times)
dustdevil
Libertarian Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3
Joined: Oct 19th, 2018
loophole in the NAP?
Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:47pm
Print Post  
I'd appreciate your input on a potential problem or loophole with the NAP I've been considering. The person in this scenario is a libertarian. This person chooses not to initiate aggression against their mortal enemy. The enemy is guilty of the violent act of your choice and our hero wants this person dead but refuses to lay a finger on them. Our hero peacefully/morally monitors the enemy and learns that the enemy will go camping in the forest (or anywhere for that matter). Our hero happens to own a tiger. Couldn't that (hungry) tiger be loosed in the forest in the vicinity of the enemy without any moral transgression on the part of our hero? Our hero never touched the enemy and the animal was not programmed to attack. Our hero simply knew with a high degree of certainty that the enemy would be mauled by an animal acting out of its base instinct to feed.

Would you consider loosing the tiger to be a moral act? If so, why? If not, why not?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7879
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #1 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 10:50pm
Print Post  
The hero could hire someone to secretly sprinkle some anthrax in his enemy's sugar bowl.  Enemy puts the (anthrax-laced) sugar in his coffee ...  dies.

This way, hero never touched his enemy, but his enemy is just as dead as he would have been had he used his hungry tiger to maul him.

Both of these schemes are aggression.  Both could bring charges of 1st degree murder if a motive were established.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7876
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #2 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 12:10am
Print Post  
dustdevil wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:47pm:
Our hero happens to own a tiger. Couldn't that (hungry) tiger be loosed in the forest in the vicinity of the enemy without any moral transgression on the part of our hero?


You should make it a vicious dog. Tigers cannot morally be owned in libertarianism because of this very reason.

SkyChief wrote on Dec 1st, 2017 at 1:26pm:
The reason(s) for owning a gun is quite different than the reason to own a tiger or a chicken.   I'm saddened to be labeled a rabid, selfish, maniac.

There is only one absolute right that each and every person on the planet has:   self-defense.    All living things have a right to self-defense.  Tigers have it - even chickens have it.  (If you've ever witnessed a cockfight, you have seen self-defense of chickens)

If government were to ban guns, it would take away our means of self-defense, and that would be immoral.   If government were to ban (ownership of) tigers, no rights were violated - it is not immoral.

Libertarianism is based on self-ownership of the individual. It means a person's wealth and property belongs to him/her  -  not the government.

You accept some degree of risk getting out of bed.  A little more risk once you leave the house. Risk goes up considerably when you drive your car.   Life is full of risks.  Don't worry if I'm carrying my gun.  If you don't physically attack me, I promise not to shoot (at) you.   Scout's honor.
  

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
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #3 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 8:12am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 12:10am:
You should make it a vicious dog. Tigers cannot morally be owned in libertarianism because of this very reason.

You can own tigers, but using them as weapons is illegal unless you use them in self defense. sort of like dogs or guns. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #4 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 8:14am
Print Post  
dustdevil wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:47pm:
I'd appreciate your input on a potential problem or loophole with the NAP I've been considering. The person in this scenario is a libertarian. This person chooses not to initiate aggression against their mortal enemy. The enemy is guilty of the violent act of your choice and our hero wants this person dead but refuses to lay a finger on them. Our hero peacefully/morally monitors the enemy and learns that the enemy will go camping in the forest (or anywhere for that matter). Our hero happens to own a tiger. Couldn't that (hungry) tiger be loosed in the forest in the vicinity of the enemy without any moral transgression on the part of our hero? Our hero never touched the enemy and the animal was not programmed to attack. Our hero simply knew with a high degree of certainty that the enemy would be mauled by an animal acting out of its base instinct to feed.

Would you consider loosing the tiger to be a moral act? If so, why? If not, why not?
The best thing to do if you know someone is guilty of a violent act is to report it to the police. In fact, not reporting violent acts to the police is immoral.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dustdevil
Libertarian Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3
Joined: Oct 19th, 2018
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #5 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 9:20am
Print Post  
my mistake, i thought this was a libertarian message board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4157
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #6 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 9:30am
Print Post  
dustdevil wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 9:20am:
my mistake, i thought this was a libertarian message board.


It is often difficult to find a libertarian here.

Mainly, you will find statists here to convince libertarians that libertarianism is impossible.  Nearly always by arguing against a false version of libertarianism.

Of course it is aggression to loose a tiger against your mortal enemy.  To be libertarian, we have to accept that every wrong cannot be righted. 

One of the most common objections to libertarianism begins with "But what about . . . "

Let you mortal enemy be until he acts against you then defend yourself with as much vigor as you choose.

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #7 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 10:14am
Print Post  
dustdevil wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 9:20am:
my mistake, i thought this was a libertarian message board.
It is, but in true libertarian fashion, all opinions are welcome.

If you're looking for a forum that toes some party line, perhaps you can find some "progressive" forum...

Really, if you want to ask questions about morality, perhaps some other type of forum- religious?- philosophical?- would be better.

Not to say that the ideas of the classical liberals are not well grounded in moral theory, but just that the morality of individuality is so well accepted by libertarians that they don't often feel any need to question them.

The Opposition questions the morality of individual liberty all the time, and firmly believes that individual liberty is immoral... And also that intentionally endangering others or even hiring someone to murder on your behalf, is not "aggression" as it narrowly defines "aggression" supposedly in line with the principle of not initiating aggression contained within the NAP.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #8 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 10:22am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 9:30am:
Let you mortal enemy be until he acts against you then defend yourself with as much vigor as you choose.

Sometimes it's better to shoot a tiger as soon as  you see it. It's a judgement call you can make at the time if it ever happens. Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7876
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #9 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 1:19pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 9:30am:
Of course it is aggression to loose a tiger against your mortal enemy.  To be libertarian, we have to accept that every wrong cannot be righted. 


It's also aggression to own one because it puts others at unnecessary risk.

It's also aggression to own a chicken in a residential neighbourhood.

I actually argued that I should be able to own a tiger, or a chicken, anywhere I want, but I lost. So I changed my view.

RubyHypatia wrote on Jun 25th, 2018 at 5:41pm:
Opp, yes it does matter what a gun or a dog or a tiger is good for.  There's a reason tigers are outlawed as pets, while dogs are not.  And there's a reason we're allowed to own guns.  The benefit of owning a tiger isn't worth the risk.  There is no benefit to owning a tiger like there is to owning a dog or gun.


The Opposition wrote on Jun 26th, 2018 at 12:18am:
RubyHypatia wrote on Jun 25th, 2018 at 5:41pm:
Opp, yes it does matter what a gun or a dog or a tiger is good for.


I propose that dogs be limited to people who use them for those purposes, then, and banned to those who only want one for companionship.


Jeff wrote on Jun 26th, 2018 at 7:23am:
The Opposition wrote on Jun 26th, 2018 at 12:18am:
I propose that dogs be limited to people who use them for those purposes, then, and banned to those who only want one for companionship.


Shame on you. You would deny a basic right... Isn't that your (absurdly wrong) complaint about libertarians, that they want to deny rights to others?


I only want fairness. If he gets a gun that presents some amount of risk to me, that's fine, and I don't want to take it away. But I would like to be able to risk him by the same amount, and be permitted to own anything as long as the risk I present to him is below that he presents to me.

I recognise my wants as Statist hogwash, though.

Libertarianism is about constantly redefining and recombobulating rights so that libertarians get what they want (guns) and no one else gets even a chicken.

SkyChief wrote on Oct 7th, 2018 at 5:18pm:
I sense a lot of frustration here.

My gun poses no threat to you or any of my neighbors.

It is locked, and its ammunition is stored in a separate, secure location.

Your chicken is a potential risk to the neighbors.  Someone's pet fox might want to eat it.  Chickens are notorious for being host to Salmonella bacteria, avian influenza virus (AI), Fowl Pox,  Necrotic Enteritis, et al....       Yuck!! 

Guns = SAFE   Smiley  Smiley

Chickens =  DEATH & DISEASES  Sad  Smiley


Jeff wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37am:
I raise chickens. If you want to buy one, I'll sell it to you. If you steal one, I'll file a complaint and have you arrested.
I don't raise my chickens in a residential neighborhood. If I did, they would constitute a nuisance and possibly a health hazard, and my neighbors would file complaints against me.
  

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 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › loophole in the NAP?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy