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 159 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7876
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #10 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 1:24pm
Print Post  
In answer to your question, no it's not aggression to let loose your dog. Get a Neapolitan mastiff and let it run wild.

You can't be punished for aggression, because it's not aggression. You didn't hit, and you didn't steal.

You can, however, be sued because the act is extremely negligent. So be prepared to lose everything if you do this.
  

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
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #11 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 2:24pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 1:19pm:
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.


Check your local laws and ordinances.

Many places will allow either (or both) if you keep your pets in such a way that they are neither a danger or a nuisance.


« Last Edit: Oct 21st, 2018 at 7:24am by Jeff »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #12 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 2:26pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 1:24pm:
In answer to your question, no it's not aggression to let loose your dog. Get a Neapolitan mastiff and let it run wild.

You can't be punished for aggression, because it's not aggression. You didn't hit, and you didn't steal.

You can, however, be sued because the act is extremely negligent. So be prepared to lose everything if you do this.
Most states have laws that make it illegal to let dogs run loose unless they stay on your property.

You are liable for damage caused by your dog.
  
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 #13 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 2:38pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 2:26pm:
You are liable for damage caused by your dog.


That's what I said.
  

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
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #14 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 3:23pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 2:38pm:
That's what I said.
You seem to have glimpsed the truth, that torts don't always involve hitting or physically taking physical objects from others, that even verbal threats are considered assault under the law, that your definition of 'aggression" has been far too narrow... Not feeding your pet tiger for a month and then letting it loose near the neighborhood school at recess time would meet my definition of initiating aggression.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dustdevil
Libertarian Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3
Joined: Oct 19th, 2018
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #15 - Oct 20th, 2018 at 8:25pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 1:24pm:
In answer to your question, no it's not aggression to let loose your dog. Get a Neapolitan mastiff and let it run wild.

You can't be punished for aggression, because it's not aggression. You didn't hit, and you didn't steal.

You can, however, be sued because the act is extremely negligent. So be prepared to lose everything if you do this.


this is sort of along the lines of what i was looking for.

the enemy has gone rogue into the forest hoping to escape justice for his misdeeds. our hero is having none of that. so, even in this case, i agree that our hero would be liable for the enemy being mauled, but does that mean our hero has violated the NAP? did our hero use aggression by unlatching the tiger cage? if the tiger didn't attack, did our hero use aggression? i can understand being held responsible for your pet tiger, but does it violate the NAP to unlatch a cage if the tiger mauls and not violate the NAP if the tiger finds a rabbit instead and ignores the enemy? in both cases our hero was hoping the enemy would be mauled.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: loophole in the NAP?
Reply #16 - Oct 21st, 2018 at 7:28am
Print Post  
dustdevil wrote on Oct 20th, 2018 at 8:25pm:
this is sort of along the lines of what i was looking for.

the enemy has gone rogue into the forest hoping to escape justice for his misdeeds. our hero is having none of that. so, even in this case, i agree that our hero would be liable for the enemy being mauled, but does that mean our hero has violated the NAP? did our hero use aggression by unlatching the tiger cage? if the tiger didn't attack, did our hero use aggression? i can understand being held responsible for your pet tiger, but does it violate the NAP to unlatch a cage if the tiger mauls and not violate the NAP if the tiger finds a rabbit instead and ignores the enemy? in both cases our hero was hoping the enemy would be mauled.
There is a tort called reckless endangerment, which involves doing something that a reasonable person would know has great potential to cause harm.

Instead of letting your tiger loose, which may end up causing harm to an innocent person, if you choose to take the law in your own hands, why not hire a professional hit man? That would be a more directed way to satisfy your pretense that your hands are clean... But it's also illegal.

You don't mention if your "guilty" enemy has been found guilty in a court of law... Do you want to dispense with that sort of thing, and just have everybody decide on their own who is guilty and mete out whatever punishment they think is appropriate to whoever they think is guilty?

Would you seriously propose that as a moral "libertarian" course of action?

Here's a quick definition- (And I was wrong, it's actually a crime in most states, often a serious felony.)

https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/

Edit: I guess you were looking for "libertarians" who would say, "She just left the baby in the car with the windows up in the mall parking lot in the summer in Phoenix, AZ while she shopped and got her hair done and got a manicure and then shopped some more and watched a movie... She never laid a hand on the baby, so there was no "aggression" involved in the baby's death... So the NAP was not violated and therefore nothing immoral was done and there should be no penalty" Cheesy
« Last Edit: Oct 21st, 2018 at 1:08pm by Jeff »  
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