>> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means.
Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps?
>> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible.
Why would it need to? It's not a system of social organization, it's a principle. But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. Sure, not everyone does. But even their choices and actions have consequences, and that's not about to change either way.
>> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does.
I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that.
>> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless
The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence.
But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example.
The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.
>> If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor?
You're claiming a piece of land as your own but I don't see how you have any more right to it than any other human born on this earth. You initiate force to remove me from what you see as your land. Who's the aggressor? Where does your right to land derive from?
Generally, improvements and occupation make it your home. Somebody coming in to take land containing a house you built, a barn you raised, cattle you bred on a crop you are growing, are taking what's yours.
Take this away and nobody would use land at all. Been done in history again and again; result always the same : collapse of farming, which means collapse of the govt.
>> Generally, improvements and occupation make it your home. Somebody coming in to take land containing a house you built, a barn you raised, cattle you bred on a crop you are growing, are taking what's yours.
So nobody should be able to own land they aren't using for anything and I should be able to just go and occupy it? Cool.
>> Take this away and nobody would use land at all. Been done in history again and again; result always the same : collapse of farming, which means collapse of the govt.
And now we've moved onto a pragmatic rather than moral absolutist argument, which I agree with entirely.
Now that we're in this territory, let's talk about a bunch of other human-friendly pragmatic moves we could make as a society that might improve everyone's lives, eh?
You are actually right. Unused land you occupy can eventually be yours, to some degree. Its called 'squatting' and while it has issues it can correct some imbalances.
I agree moral absolutism is tricky. But think of it as first principles. You have to argue from something or its all situational ethics, which depend entirely upon your point of view.
Deriving from a first principle that's so broken and so subjective seems to me basically pointless. Moral absolutism is only useful if you have an absolute. We don't have one, not one we share anyway (him and me, no idea on your views really), so berating me for not joining in when you start deriving from it seems a bit off. It's one of the things about objectivism that really gets me -
"we're the only philosophy based on objective reality!"
"But these things are highly subjective?!"
"Shut up you sociopath/leech/parasite!"
The squatting thing is interesting, most people hate it instinctively but I'm unsure where I stand.
>> Why would the same rule not apply to you? In other words, you can't just "occupy" land, you'll have to use it, just like everyone else.
Who's saying I wouldn't use it? It's pretty radical for a hard-property-rights libertarian to concede I could just go up and take someone's land if I judge it's not in proper use!
I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.'
> Think about it.
I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
>> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.'
What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first.
>> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread.
Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something other than what you were supposedly addressing. That's kind of weird.
>> There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
Sure. It's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But is it worthwhile? Moral rules are not absolutes, but that's alright. The point is to get close enough, and there are often several sensible ways to view ideas, such as "property" for example.
But bickering about the exact definitions of words your opponent happens to use is just a bullshit distraction, intentional or not. I've wasted way too much time on that road already. We both use and understand the English language just fine. There are no obstacles to our communication besides the ones intentionally put up.
I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.
>> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless
And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickering about the definitions for everyday words is a bullshit distraction).
But suppose "force" meant "violence or coercion", and "to initiate" meant "to start" (there's no real confusion about that, at least). With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?
> With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?
Those aren't definitions.
Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun?
Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend?
Is it force to covet your property? Is it force to touch your property? Is it force to enter your property? Is it force to illegitimately acquire your property? Is it force to manipulate your property? Is it force to develop your property's uses?
Is it initiation for someone to threaten you? Is it initiation for someone to threaten you abstractly? Is it initiation for someone to threaten your property? Is it initiation for someone to threaten your friends?
That's off the top of my head. Gimme a bit, and I'll "think about it".
As I mentioned already, it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions?
>> Is it force for someone to own a gun?
Is it force for you to own shoes?
>> Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun?
Is it force for someone to reveal they're not wearing a bra? No, it's not. Coercion requires an intent, a choice, and an action. Why are you flashing a gun? -Has someone just threatened to attack you? -Or have you just demanded money from someone?
>> Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun?
Intent, intent, intent, etc.
>> Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend? Is it initiation for someone to attack you?
Of course. The one who attacks, ie. initiates, is the aggressor.
>> Is it force to covet your property?
Is it force to covet a woman?
>> Is it force to touch your property?
Is it force to touch a person?
>> Is it force to enter your property?
Is it force to enter Wal-Mart?
>> Is it force to illegitimately acquire your property?
I don't think so. But it depends on stuff.
>> Is it force to manipulate your property?
Is it force to open a door?
>> Is it force to develop your property's uses?
What do you even mean? .. Oh, but don't actually answer that. I have a feeling we're not about to get anywhere in this discussion.
> it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end
You're missing the fact that I'm accepting the NAP for the purposes of this discussion. The question isn't whether or not the NAP is valid; it's what the fuck I actually do in real life.
> But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions?
I offered you a chance to define your terms. A definition is a boundary in meaning where, inside, the term is applied, and outside, the term is not applied. By asking these questions, you learn what the definition is.
You can do a similar series of questions for defining, say, a banana. You might do that by pointing to a series of objects and asking, "Is this a banana?" That's all I'm doing: I'm pointing at a series of situations and asking, "Is this force? Is this initiation?"
> Coercion requires an intent, a choice, and an action.
Like this. This is important. Nothing in the Non-Aggression Principle points this out.
Which categories of intents, choices, and actions may be combined to constitute coercion, which constitutes force? As our understanding of neuroscience develops, how might we gain nuance into understanding what constitutes coercion?
I know the complexity of reality is scary, but unfortunately, I am doomed to live in reality, which is sorta complex and infinitely various.
> Questions related to property and force.
Yeah, I clearly failed to frame the latter three sets as well as I did the first.
This is a question about the definition of violence. For instance, let's say you're carrying a glass sculpture that you like. While arguing with you, I knock it from your hand and it shatters. That obviously constitutes initiation, but does that constitute force? I didn't hurt you, nor did I coerce you, but that nevertheless seems like aggression.
With questions like "If you own" or "If you covet", my intent was to give you a clear place where you could have a fairly simple "no", but still actually have room to say "yes" if that's what you believed.
>> Is it force to develop your property's uses?
> What do you even mean?
This is a reference to Locke's definition of property. If someone cultivates the land and produces value from it, then they own it. If you gain ownership, and then someone else cultivates and produces value, is that force?
>> The question isn't whether or not the NAP is valid; it's what the fuck I actually do in real life.
What a particular person does in real life has no bearing on whether a particular moral principle is a good idea. You may be a sociopath who doesn't give a fuck about the NAP, or you may be a gentle person who wouldn't hurt anyone. That's beside the point.
The NAP is a reasonably well defined moral principle. You either think it's a good idea, or you don't. If not, perhaps you'll suggest a better one. Either way, these are just ideas, and then, as you pointed out, there's the real world.
But so what? In fact, the vast majority of people already automatically adhere to the NAP, without ever having even come across the idea. What you're doing here, is preventing the conversation from progressing, preventing us (or yourself) from getting anywhere with this. I've expended months of effort in debating with a couple of staunch Statists, and their favourite bullshit distraction is complicating everything.
See, there really are countless different "lifeboat scenarios" or edge cases you could keep coming up with and bringing up, but they have no bearing on the sensibility of the rationale behind the NAP, or the principle itself. What matters is not the countless edge cases, but the general principles themselves, and most of all, whether they are rational and consistent.
There is no all-encompassing, absolute, 100% objective moral system, but that's alright. Since the best we can do is "close enough", that's what we should aim for. Even the Golden Rule by itself is enough, and not only that, we actually have a "biological moral system" - your conscience is a manifestation of it. We're biologically inclined to behave in a moral way. No, bringing up sociopaths is not necessary here.
>> I offered you a chance to define your terms
Not really. You came in claiming that my definitions weren't definitions. But that's yet another issue that's better left un-bickered. Then you threw various unrelated questions at me, and I responded to them, trying to get you to see that the answers to most of your questions depend on various circumstances etc that aren't known.
>> You might do that by pointing to a series of objects and asking, "Is this a banana?" That's all I'm doing: I'm pointing at a series of situations and asking, "Is this force? Is this initiation?"
Sure, but to what end? You can figure out the correct answers to all of your questions with a moment's thought, at least hopefully. For example, owning a gun is no more "force" than owning a pair of socks. It's about what you do with the gun. Besides, you can strangle someone to death with a pair of socks, but for some strange reason, someone possessing socks is not a problem.
>> Like this. This is important. Nothing in the Non-Aggression Principle points this out.
That's because you can figure this stuff out as necessary, as it comes up. Reasoning is enough.
>> Which categories of intents, choices, and actions may be combined to constitute coercion, which constitutes force? As our understanding of neuroscience develops, how might we gain nuance into understanding what constitutes coercion?
Again, there are endless options for preventing a discussion from getting anywhere. You're just needlessly complicating things. I get it. It's difficult to process this stuff.
But here's a simple question: Does anyone have the right to take someone else's property by force? Now, if you're thinking of asking for a definition of "property", you're just proving my point. "Property" can be defined in several, compatible, sensible ways, but we all intuitively know what it means anyway, and act accordingly. We all know it's wrong for me to take something from you against your will, and vice versa.
Next, since the answer is clearly "No", the next question is: "So why would a human being working for the government have the right to take your property by force then?".. Feel like answering that? -Bear in mind that we're all just people, all part of the same human race, all just individuals, with the exact same rights as every other human being, and the answer should be obvious.
>> This is a question about the definition of violence
No it's not. It's a question of common sense. Yes, the definition of "violence" gets murky when you start digging through it, but that's irrelevant. For example, everyone knows that punching someone in the face for no reason is wrong, and that it constitutes violence. Again, the aggressor is always in the wrong. It's a very simple, but extremely effective rule, and one that actually does fit the way we naturally behave and the kind of things we naturally consider immoral.
>> If someone cultivates the land and produces value from it, then they own it.
Sure, that makes sense. It's roughly the same as Murray Rothbard's idea of "mixing one's labour" with something, eg. land.
>> If you gain ownership, and then someone else cultivates and produces value, is that force?
I'm assuming you meant the same piece of land. Clearly, if the land is already reasonably considered your property, then no one else is allowed to interfere with your control over it.
>> The NAP is a reasonably well defined moral principle.
Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force. Particularly where it concerns libertarian dialogue in which anything and everything can be and is construed as violence, with the bizarre exception of property rights. It's not reasonably well defined, it's vague and facile.
>> What matters is not the countless edge cases, but the general principles themselves, and most of all, whether they are rational and consistent.
Actually I value pragmatism and social utility well over consistency when it comes to my society. If a society is entirely rational based on a narrow vision of rational morality but ends up worse for the majority of people than one that is morally corrupt from top to bottom... well you'll find me in Corruptopia.
>> There is no all-encompassing, absolute, 100% objective moral system, but that's alright. Since the best we can do is "close enough", that's what we should aim for.
But we should definitely aim for one that respects your morals (property rights) over anyone else's (equal access to land, food etc) ?
>> Does anyone have the right to take someone else's property by force?
Yup, in some circumstances. For instance if your property is radioactive and near my house. There are many other exceptions as you yourself have mentioned.
>> everyone knows that punching someone in the face for no reason is wrong, and that it constitutes violence. Again, the aggressor is always in the wrong
That must be why the good guys in movies are always non-violent pacifists and never, ever punch someone in the face for saying something they don't like about their girl (for instance).
I'm sorry, but you start with an ill-defined premise (the NAP), admit there are hundreds of holes or grey areas, and then try to tell us that we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it anyway. It's rather funny really.
>> Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force
No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all.
>> Actually I value pragmatism and social utility well over consistency when it comes to my society.
Yes, well, now we're in the territory of collectivist thinking, which is just completely ass-backwards considering we're all just individuals, not part of The Borg. Collectivism is one of the supporting pillars of States. We're bombarded with the idea that we must all be subject to a ruling class for the common good, that we need to pay taxes to help poor people, and so on.
And before you go there, wanting to keep your property does not mean you want poor people to die. You just want everyone's property rights to be respected.
>> If a society is entirely rational based on a narrow vision of rational morality but ends up worse for the majority of people than one that is morally corrupt from top to bottom... well you'll find me in Corruptopia.
In case you haven't noticed, you already find yourself in Corruptopia. Seriously, dude. Bailouts ring a bell? Campaign contributions (=bribes), etc? You know your politicians are thoroughly corrupt and lie just about every time they open their mouths, and you insist on holding on to that?
>> But we should definitely aim for one that respects your morals (property rights) over anyone else's (equal access to land, food etc) ?
Not "over" anyone else's. Obviously, everyone has the exact same rights as everyone else. That means no one is allowed to take my property, and I'm not allowed to take anyone else's property. It all works out just fine. Oh, and rights can't be in conflict - that would break our notion of rights. Just like black is black and not white at the same time, the right to take someone's property cannot exist while people have the right to keep their property. Get it?
>> Yup, in some circumstances. For instance if your property is radioactive and near my house. There are many other exceptions as you yourself have mentioned.
The obvious answer was "no", and that's enough. We're not talking about edge cases here, because there are countless, and wading through them is pointless. There are even more circumstances where it takes zero effort to adhere to the NAP.
Here's a good rule of thumb: any time you don't want to aggress against anyone, you'll automatically adhere to the NAP, and if you're sane, you'll realize that this is pretty much all the time. See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. That just can't be required. As mentioned, the best we can do is "close enough", and the NAP certainly is.
>> non-violent pacifists and never, ever punch someone in the face for saying something they don't like about their girl (for instance).
Right, and what fucking sense does it make to physically assault someone for saying something bad about you or your girlfriend? Insecure much? Feeling violent?
>> I'm sorry, but you start with an ill-defined premise (the NAP), admit there are hundreds of holes or grey areas, and then try to tell us that we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it anyway. It's rather funny really.
Dude. You haven't got much to go by here. See above. You know that the NAP works just fine.
Besides, when you say "we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it", who exactly is that we you refer to? What should we do? What should you do? Who's anyone to tell you what you should do, as long as you don't harm others? You're thinking in collectivist terms again, which is understandable, since we've all been brainwashed to think like that. But you need to wake up and realize that we're not The Borg. We're not parts of some collective consciousness. We're all just individuals, and make our individual choices. Choices have consequences, and everyone is responsible for his own.
YES. Absolutely yes. BECAUSE I AM HUMAN, motherfucker. Will hitting you in the face repeatedly persuade you that people are naturally violent? Probably not, but at least it MAKE ME FEEL BETTER. I know this is true, because I've done it. It feels great.
Come on. See if you can explain to me how my natural pacifistic soul is not inclined to slam your skull against a brick wall. If your NAP allows you to hit back? Fuck that. It just means I need to hit you so hard you can't hit back. That's my choice, and the consequences are awesome. I get an adrenaline high; I get to assert my animal dominance; I get to feel the crunch of your bone. It's obvious and natural; you pissed me off, so you made me hit you. I didn't start it; you just shouldn't have pissed me off.
What do I get out of following your stupid NAP? All it means is that I don't get to watch you double over when I kick you in the balls. What good is that to me? If I have a baseball bat, then I really ought to cement my ownership of it by cultivating its usage as a knee breaker. Maybe knock out a few teeth.
You go on. You follow your NAP. Maybe we'll meet someday. And maybe I'll get to watch you cry like a bitch. Maybe I'm insecure. But as the childhood lesson goes, if someone calls you names, you get some sticks and some stones and you go to town. I hope you feel superior. Maybe I'll get lucky and we can see some piss and vomit in addition to blood and tears.
Come on. Wish me away again. If you call on your fairy godmother, maybe you'll see me coming and you can run away in time.
I've seen quite a few outbursts brought on by cognitive dissonance, but yours definitely takes the cake. Maybe you'll eventually wake the fuck up in some kind of gulag near Seattle.
It's not cognitive dissonance to admit to insecurity and an interest in violence, dear child. Cognitive dissonance is believing that people are naturally non-violent while having your face punched in.
Telling me I don't exist does not, in fact, make me go away.
>> No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all.
It is indeed very hard to communicate with people like yourself who insist on seeing everything as violence and aggression, but we must try.
And we absolutely can (and do) disagree about definitions. Have you never heard the old socialist line "all property is theft"? Now if I understand you correctly, theft is a form of violence, so to some people property itself is a problem of violence and aggression.
>> Yes, well, now we're in the territory of collectivist thinking, which is just completely ass-backwards considering we're all just individuals, not part of The Borg.
And we all live on a shared planet and all of our actions impact on other people, you do not live on an asteroid with no other people around. Get over it.
>> Collectivism is one of the supporting pillars of States. We're bombarded with the idea that we must all be subject to a ruling class for the common good, that we need to pay taxes to help poor people, and so on.
Nobody I know says you must be subject to a ruling class, though many do say we must be subject to a set of rules that we come up with collectively. Many of them may be covered by NAP, many are not. Otherwise I don't disagree - taxes are generally a good thing, though we should fight inefficiency where we can. And I speak as an earner in one of the 1% highest earning households in my country.
>> In case you haven't noticed, you already find yourself in Corruptopia.
I know, right? And just look at us! Highest standards of living in the world and highest standards of living in history! And look at those places where there's little or no government, they collapse into tribalism, violence, warlords and total social decay! Corruptopia is pretty sweet right?
I'll not deny we have problems (it's Corruptopia after all), but not the sort that I see being solved by adherence to a bizarre, simplistic and flawed moral (non-)axiom.
>> The obvious answer was "no", and that's enough. We're not talking about edge cases here, because there are countless, and wading through them is pointless. There are even more circumstances where it takes zero effort to adhere to the NAP.
No, the obvious answer, and the one you explicitly agreed with is that it depends on the circumstances. It's almost as if there were other moral principles at work that you allow to override your NAP from time to time. How odd!
>> See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. That just can't be required. As mentioned, the best we can do is "close enough", and the NAP certainly is.
A rule that is as full of holes as that, as disputed in definition, is not a good rule to use as the basis of society.
>> See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever.
If no moral rule can cover every possible situation then how about we don't try and structure society about one rule eh?
>> Right, and what fucking sense does it make to physically assault someone for saying something bad about you or your girlfriend? Insecure much? Feeling violent?
Me, no, but you said everyone knows it's wrong. I was giving the counterpoint that pop-culture is filled with violence and aggression, even amongst the 'good guys'.
>> You know that the NAP works just fine.
I know that it's not the be-all and end-all of the basis for a good society.
>> Who's anyone to tell you what you should do, as long as you don't harm others?
Where the line of harming others starts is entirely subjective. A lot of people deny the anthropogenic global warming/climate change is real, and so continue to wantonly fill the air with greenhouse gasses. They don't see it as harming anyone yet scientifically speaking they are harming everyone for multiple generations.
It's just not as simple as you like to think, and the results of a balanced mix of property rights and collectivism has so far resulted in the best societies the planet has ever seen. Sorry if I seem reluctant to throw that away based on a platitude.
To me, I agree, but I've heard some of them draw a distinction I don't fully understand and I try to be respectful of identifying people in the way they choose to be identified.
I'm not sure what that distinction might be, and I doubt it would be real anyway. Basically the idea is that everything should be voluntary, which is really hard to disagree with whilst being sane.
the NAP is in effect. it's just me and you in the forest, and there's one apple tree. you "own" the apple tree. I am starving, and I "steal" an apple from your tree.
There's no need to quibble about "lifeboat scenarios". You can come up with countless scenarios where there needs to be an "exception" to the NAP, but that's pointless, and a waste of time. It changes nothing about NAP itself, or its basis.
You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that.
For a clearer picture, start coming up with scenarios where you could adhere to the NAP with zero effort at all.
>> You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that.
Then the NAP is not the whole of the law, or necessarily even a useful starting point.
I was already building a reply to that. What it seems to boil down to is "I know that I can't define my terms and I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything".
>> I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything
Ah yes, "we just disagree on morality" is a classic avoidance-technique for a Statist that refuses to accept reality. But actually, no we don't. Not if you're sane and not a sociopath. We've both got a conscience, and it usually warns us when we're doing something even somewhat wrong.
>> But actually, no we don't. Not if you're sane and not a sociopath.
Ah yes, "if you disagree with my interpretation of morality you must be a sociopath" is a classic avoidance technique for a libertarian that refuses to accept reality.
>> We've both got a conscience, and it usually warns us when we're doing something even somewhat wrong.
Not everyone's conscience tells them the same thing, neither does everyone's conscience tell them that the NAP is the root rule of the universe. Even yours doesn't as you've admitted in a variety of places.
>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force.
Nope. Our "rights" are an idea, but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights.
In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone and starts running away, you have the right to try and stop him because he has no right to take your property. It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.
> It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.
there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem.
to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.
>> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem
You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defending it may require some.
But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.
> But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies?
that a philosophy that is founded on "there are only two rules: property rights are The One True Right, and initiation of force is The One True Wrong" is impossible to take seriously.
> Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.
nice way to try to take the higher ground while forfeiting. it's okay-- I know thinking is often hard for libertarians.
Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps?
>> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible.
Why would it need to? It's not a system of social organization, it's a principle. But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. Sure, not everyone does. But even their choices and actions have consequences, and that's not about to change either way.