Gene Epstein vs. David Friedman on the nonaggression principle: Soho Forum debate 

Exactly. I like the dual approach. Not only do state policies not work and cause harm in the wake of failure but they also involve violence to enforce. The first argument is utilitarian. It's problem is since you aren't God you don't know everything and so future outcomes come with a level of unpredictability. The hypothetical consequence of your action may be wrong. The second is deontological. We ought not do immoral things like steal or use violence. Its flaw is in the boundary cases where duties conflict. perhaps you ought to steal if it means saving lives. Combining the two is compelling. Relying on just one makes your argument susceptible to debate in some form.

@@tann_man ​ Hard agree on the utilitarian part. To add on, the NAP can be applied in a rule utilitarian framework. The deontology of the NAP and the right of self-ownership can be logically defended with Hoppe and Kinsella's argumentation ethics. The last part about stealing to save lives would be edge cases reserved for the virtue ethics domain. It could be virtuous to steal to save lives only if the thief promises to accept the consequences of their actions good and bad. Now that we have the deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics figured out, we got the foundational pillars of an ethical system.

@@theMichaelMelo utilitarians are people who have no thought out moral framework.

I think the market for people who would be more likely to be convinced by the NAP than some kind of effectiveness in terms of what those people want to accomplish

I guess because it would mean that libertarians are actually 2 groups that believe 2 completely different things and only have shared interests insofar as the things that we disagree about remain edge cases.

Wrong. Gene Epstein surrenders the debate when he says "I should steal to save the world" and should have been forced to say "I should murder to save the world" and "I should genocide half the planet to save the other half". Same with David Friedman. The NAP is not situational, it is unconditional.

Is it a principle or a general rule?

"Hard cases make bad law."

The non-aggression principle is a theorem, not an axiom. An axiom of (classical) liberalism is self-ownership - which is universal, not merely general. There is not a single exception to this rule from the perspective of deontological liberalism. Saying something is universally obligatory, however, doesn’t necessarily mean the speaker himself will never violate or has never violated it. We all commit petty offenses all the time. Poking your family member gently without his consent is already an infringement on his right to his body. Yet, when this happens hardly ever does anyone make a big deal out of it and go on to sue the transgressor. You know where this ends. Having said that, there’s still a big difference between saying that the self-ownership axiom may in the most extreme situation be pragmatically violated with full legal consequences and that it should be violated whenever it is expedient without any legal consequence at all. The former is acceptable as a matter of practicality but never as a matter of universal ethicality while the latter is absolutely unacceptable. Certain problems may be solvable for the time being only by citizens violating the self-ownership axiom and willingly taking full responsibilities for it, but the state has an obligation to refrain from violating, protect, and punish everyone for violating it in all cases. If you’re a government official and believe that the overall benefit of not fulfilling your duty to protect a right in any particular extreme situation does tremendously outweigh the cost of doing so, just quit your job and persuade others to do the same so that the state will be temporarily ineffective at protecting that right.

I think you're right, and I think Epstein's emphasis on "actionable" is a good way of framing NAP analysis. I have a lot of respect for David Friedman, but I think he was being very tendentious in his opening argument when he defines the NAP in such absolute terms. I also don't think his argument about property owners not accepting restitution works, either. Any anarcho-capitalist system would eventually develop various competing standards for determining restitution and I would guess that at some point approximately all of them will have a mechanism for rendering judgment even if one or both parties are not totally happy.

Big yikes. How many thousands of no name libertarians could’ve hit this out of the park? It’s very simple. The nonaggression principle is about what should be legal, not what’s moral for an individual.

@@HarryPainter Yeah, it's what should be common law.

David was making a consequentialist argument in the book, and the context of Gene's was disputing the validity of Friedman's conclusions. He wasn't abandoning his larger emphasis on the ZAP, which is why he made the mark about "temporary slavery vs permanent slavery".

I'd argue that the belief is rarely "blind". It's fulfilling the sliver (not the golden) rule.

I have always viewed the NAP as the Tit for two Tats strategy that reverts back to a Tit for Tat strategy under hostile conditions. Works great in a high trust society and you won't get screwed over that badly in a low trust one.

It’s ethically sound in terms of logic. Do thorough analysis and you will come to the same conclusion. Even if you aren’t libertarian. Use critical thinking, my guy.

The NAP means , don't rape, rob, murder or assault. Tell me which of those am I just blindly believing in?

@@user-wl2xl5hm7k Yeah, in my opinion utilitarians are extremely blind. They have no moral compass

It's the non AGGRESSION principle, not the non DEFENSE principle.

Agree with you completely - I think some people are very uncomfortable with the idea that moral judgments are personal opinions, because then they actually have to speak for themselves and defend their actions in and of themselves.

The NAP is a legal principle

@@blocks4857 I googled the definition of "rule of thumb" and it came up with "a broadly accurate principle". So you just said the same thing.

You're just insulting people who hold the NAP as absolute; not making any argument.

@@shlockofgodI could care less what you hold as absolute & only care about actions.

@@shlockofgod That's how people with no moral foundation work.

Almost no one is persuaded by arguments in any case. It is usually just friends and groups. Whether someone you admired or befriended was a libertarian.

I’m not persuaded and I would use force in self defense to prevent most libertarian actions that lead to bad outcomes from being imposed.

You think the belief that we should not commit theft, murder, rape and assault is blind?

@@shlockofgodit’s at best just inherited herd morality. None of our ancestors followed these rules when it came to viewing outsiders. Chances are most people including yourself would do these things if you could get away with it. Weakness masquerading as morality.

No, they have their cake and then their opponents claim they can't eat it.

"would he not be able to show us his calculations...?" He doesn't argue that all consequences must be calculated before action may be taken; he argues that free enterprise produces better consequences than central planning. To understand his 'calculations' try his book 'Price Theory' if you haven't already. "the NAP on equally extreme grounds" NAP is seen by many, if not most people who refer to it, as the fundamental axiom of libertarianism. David is trying to show that that it is not. Naturally that requires reductio ad absurdum as, if it didn't, that would mean that it were obvious that it NAP _is_ axiomatic - in which case libertarians (mostly pretty smart people) wouldn't believe that it is. "NAP would authorize shooting someone in the head " Saying 'please don't touch my flagpole' is different to shooting someone, even if the result is death. But that's beside the point. The purpose of the flagpole example is to show that there are situations in YOU (i.e. a believer in the of NAP) would violate NAP, which means either you are not a true libertarian, or that NAP is not axiomatic. You choose! ;-) But note that David admitted that NAP is a good rule of thumb. It's just not axiomatic.

@@anarchic_ramblings My comment was an attempt to show that Friedmans argument against the NAP can be used against his own position as well. I am with Gene on his interpretation of the NAP: If you violate it you are a criminal and should be punished according to libertarian law. But I do think you can make use of the common legal principle that emergencies if they are indeed emergencies can give additional room to save your life in a strictly necessary way (like grabbing the flagpole when it's the necessary option to save your life or avoid severe damage) without the same punishment if you were to take the same action without the emergency. That point wasn't brought up by Gene though. I'm merely adding it here for clarification on my position.

@@uffemerrild4282 "if they are indeed emergencies can give additional room to save your life" Yes, and that is a consequentialist argument. Friedman concedes that NAP is a good rule of thumb; he's just saying that it isn't sufficiently philosophically rigorous to be treated as the foundational _axiom_ of libertarianism. Further he argues that no _moral_ axioms exist.

It is not, there is an objective proof of the NAP via Argumentation Ethics (PFP163 Hans Herman Hoppe)

close to the kinsella view

Please summarize the notion of how Argumentation Ethics objectively proved anything.

Nonsense. You can disagree that A=A, but that would make you an incoherent. Some statements are impossible to reject via dialogue. The NAP is not a matter of opinion, but a necessity of any ethic outside of Warfare.

Why can't moral rules be absolute? And if they're not absolute then how are they any different from arbitrary rules or preferences?

@@shlockofgod Morals cannot be absolute, because they are not directly enforced by universal physics. They only enforced by applied will, whether yours or anothers'. this makes them a choice, and therefore always to a small degree arbitrary.

@@jasonmorello1374 The enforcement or lack of enforcement of morals is irrelevant to whether they are absolute or not. A moral like "murder is wrong" can still be absolute regardless of whether it's enforced or it.

@@shlockofgod Different definitions. I speak of absolutes being that the repercussions of it are relatively obvious or immediate, and not ones that take the act of another to enact. You are choosing on some other standard, possibly on a universal agreement of its evil, which is subjective. I would agree murder is always wrong, but I also might dither with you on what the word murder is defined as. Killing someone attacking you with the appearance of lethal force would be self defense, and not murder for example.

That's a contradiction. Slavery/ Genocide is not libertarian.

Why?

@@shlockofgod Considering the idea of a person being abused that is a total stranger. It's common to hear, among those who claim to not be consequentialists, that opposition to such abuse is proof that ethics is based on principal, because there is no gain to be had for opposing such abuse. But the fact is, for a moral person, the existence of such abuse is repugnant, and opposition to it is still consequentialist. People who claim that their ethical ideas are based on "principle" rather than "consequentialism" (there's many words used for this) are unable or afraid to say why they believe what they believe.

@@CarrotCakeMake But the principle is valid regardless of how you feel. That's why it applies to the abuser (who clearly does not find such abuse repugnant). A person who does not remotely care about such abuse can still use the NAP to acknowledge it is immoral. The fact that most people happen to ALSO really care about the consequences is incidental. You're conflating consequentialism with reason why people happen to care about abuse, etc. But consequentialism is a moral theory, just like deontology or NAP.

@@shlockofgod There are so few people who actually understand what they are talking about. It's nice to see someone who can understand philosophy/logic/reason.

@CarrotCakeMake What you're describing is egoism, not really consequentialism.

"Someone who understands that his property is immediately essential for saving your life would be unreasonable in withholding that property from you." That is a consequentialist argument.

@@anarchic_ramblings Read the last sentence before turning your brain off.

@@MichaelJPartyka Charming.

@@anarchic_ramblings Don't have much time for anyone who thinks slapping a label on someone's comment constitutes an argument.

You should read Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer. Most people in the first world have many resources that could be used to save lives, but we consider it perfectly reasonable not to do so.

Where did this guideline come from?

If you are using coercion then by definition you're using force for reasons other than self defense. The least coercive choice would then logically be a non-coercive one.

@@shlockofgod No it would not...as with the mass shooting he speaks too, you can stop many people from being murdered by aggressing against the property right of a man telling you not to take his gun laying at your feet and use it to help those being murdered. In extreme circumstances, there are no non-coercive choices. You merely analyze for yourself...but what of others affected? Most anarchists agree, you just pick the gun up against the man's will, and use it to help. You violate the NAP, but not my PLC. Pacifism or inaction mirror the NAP here, and will always do so when a set of choices does not contain a non-coercive choice (a choice where someone is coerced...it's not relevant whether you are doing the coercing or not, we're speaking to everyone involved, not some egoist version - and egoists don't believe morality exists, soooo...). You can always ethically choose pacifism or the NAP... ...but it's OPTIMAL ethically to choose the PLC, always. The PLC will mirror the NAP when a set of choices contains one where NO ONE involved is coerced. This is 99% of normal life. However, when "lifeboat ethics" (ethical dilemmas of an extreme nature) occur, or extreme circumstances where a set of choices does not contain a non-coercive choice (meaning all choices contain some level of coercion for someone involved), then the PLC mirrors Utility purely. This resolves the great debate between deontological and consequentialist ethics, by using instead circumstances to determine what is ethical, given the goal of causing the least coercion in the world possible (including none, most of the time). I call this analysis circumstantialism, as opposed to consequentialism and deontological (rule based). Judging intentions (deontological) is not enough, and either is judging outcomes (consequentialism). I can accidentally shoot and kill a Grapist trying to Grape someone, when trying to murder someone I missed. The shot just happened to have a good result...but the intent was murder. Same the other way...i can accidentally kill an innocent person, trying stop the Grape. A bad result from a good intent. All of us abandon those theories when we need to, when it's obvious they fail...like the NAP in the mass shooting example, and Utility in daily life, when the "utility monster" problem can arise for utilitarians (consequentialists0. Einstein called it "special case" when he couldn't find a way to resolve the math in a theory of everything. The "special case" was an admission that his theory was flawed or incomplete somehow. When you need a special case for the NAP in the mass shooting example, it proves the theory is flawed or incomplete. The same goes for utility, given the "utility monster". However, the PLC remains consistent, always...you always choose the Path of Least Coercion (in normal circumstances, this will mirror the NAP, and in extreme circumstances, it will mirror Utility, resolving any need for special cases for either theory. The PLC is consistent precisely because it doesn't concern itself with intentions or outcomes (or either alone, to be more precise) as a crux of analysis in ethical dilemmas...and instead focuses on circumstances (as defined by having ANY choices available whose outcomes lead to NO ONE affected being coerced, or not). By doing so, aggression ceases to be the focus, as does maximizing utility, and instead we focus on diminishing coercion in the world to its lowest possible levels (even if this means, in extreme circumstances, increasing aggression, in opposition to the NAP - which we otherwise mirror). And because of this utility is maximized (as coercion diminishes utility always, but aggression doesn't if it lessens coercion in an extreme circumstance). I hope you understand, the NAP and Utility have "special cases" described by many philosophers. This suggests they are not perfect theories, and one such as mine might just come along and fix them, or supplant them. Although I don't care if people embrace my theory...they fact is, they already do, in most cases, by merely admitting they'd grab the gun and stop the mass shooting in the hypothetical...so I'm just articulating what we all, already admit to ourselves.

@@tonypalmentera7752 There's no initiation of force when picking up the man's gun. Any one who owns a gun would know that another person can use it in such an extremity. You implicitly agree to such reasonable actions when you accept ownership of a gun. These absurd and shallow scenarios only exist in vacuums. If there were no scenarios with non-coercive options then, by definition, the agent/s in that scenario have no choice and/or must being being coerced into those options; which means that at least one of those option is non-coercion. Non-aggression means not INITIATING force. If the only options are coercive ones then force has already been initiated.

@@shlockofgod Obviously you violated his property rights picking up his gun against his will. There is no word salad exception to the NAP for this scenarios, hence it is a flawed or incomplete theory. Ex post facto changing the original theory to fit, and doing it for every scenario which pokes a hole in the axiom/principle amounts to what Marxists do with historical materialism and historical determinism (both debunked many times over).

@@shlockofgod you say anyone who owns a gun would know...that somehow they can't give permission or not to use their property, when they are standing right there saying "do not use my gun". Your idea of the "NAP" and "private property" is a tautology, in the worst sense. I wonder, when can they violate the NAP and property rights in such ways, when the property in question is your body...because property in the self is another pillar of the NAP. So, when can you use a person's body against their permission?? When does the NAP have an exception that allows, in some extreme situations, to deny the property right and will of another person when it comes to not just their alienable property, but also their inalienable body??? Nice try.

If you're a nihilist ought consequences not matter to you?

Consequences on my life matter a lot to me… I just don’t think that there are any stance indipendent moral facts…

​@@matteopastrello4535 Are you saying only consequences to your personal experience matter? If so shouldn't your beliefs logically arrive at pure power politic? ie 'good' political outcomes are outcomes that benefit you and all of politics boil down to a game of acquiring power in order to maximize your advantage over others. Without abandoning moral relativism would you agree morality seems to feature a cross cultural through line? It seems most people share pretty similar morals relative to the vastness of possible moral stances. Wouldn't this give credence to David's tactic?

@@matteopastrello4535 So do you believe things like rape and murder exist? If so, in what sense?

@@tann_manconsequences to my life matter to me, i don’t think they matter in general… so if I could be made emperor supreme for my life without the chance of being assassinated, that would be the best outcome in my book… but since that is not a likely outcome of the political process, i’m going to bet on the third best alternative (the second being a perfectly benevolent and all-knowing dictator, which funny enough i also don’t think is a pretty rare occurance)… As for the moral convergence argument, I do agree that cross cultures and time humans tend and tended to have similar basic moral principles… and that can be explained easily by evolution, those moral principle are incidentely the principle that ensure the best chance for our genes to survive… but this does not tell me anything on what moral principle I should have or follow.. i’m not my genes, and i’m not my species, and maybe i don’t care if humans will survive in the future… for me the best scenario is one where everybody is morally virtous and i can take advantage of everybody… which is why a moral argument with moral nihilists will never work…

So people should disregard whatever prevents them gaining power?

@@shlockofgod People should not. Libertarians on the other hand, should do so in a principled fashion.

@@torch_fire9218 You mean libertarians should occasionally advocate or commit rape, murder, theft or assault when it helps them?

@@shlockofgodif your principles don’t lead to power then they are maladaptive by definition.

As if liberty is the only concern. I see most people using their liberty to become unhealthy, ugly, and meek which are evidence of its poor track record. I’d much rather have a strong, healthy, & beautiful society at the expense of a little liberty.

Hans Herman Hoppe "proved" the NAP in PFP163 - it is the core of Libertarian Ethics.

@@kasimirfreeman Yeah but objective data should be used where available.

That a general principle should be broken under extenuating circumstances doesn't negate the principle. "It is wrong to lie" is a principle. But if you're hiding Anne Frank in the attic and the Nazis come asking, it's right to break the principle. "Don't run red lights is a principle." But if you're rushing someone to the hospital who just had a heart attack, it's right to break the principle. Hard cases make bad law. Gene's point is that red light-runner has ineed broken the just principle, and must accept the punishment (in this ase a red light ticket). But also that the punishment should befit the crime and the circumstances surrounding the commision of the crime.

@@benmeltzer A principle which isn't universally true is just a convention. What makes principles useful is that they are universally true.

@@ZLogick What's an example of a universally-true moral principle?

The Nitpickers Club, Nitpicker's Club, and Nitpickers' Club are three separate clubs.

ill make CFCs and you can do nothing to stop it

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 ... and if enough people join you and do the same,.. eventually, the global ozone layer is destroyed, and the earth's surface becomes as irradiated and sterile as the surface of Mars??!? How is such _Liberty_ a good thing?!?

@@davidhunt313 Who said I'd be releasing them into the atmosphere?

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 That's what happens fairly naturally when chlorofluorocarbons are used as refrigerates. It's why the global ozone layer was disappearing for decades,.. and only started to heal with the global prohibition on the manufacturing and use of chlorofluorocarbons. There are some absolute, unchosen, positive, affirmative duties that all free people must submit to so that we may be free!! I would like to have a civil and exhaustive discussion on this subject,.. especially with those who disagree.

@@davidhunt313 Right, well certain actions do not necessarily aggress, such as making and using CFC, however if one were to tip the scales and release some CFC that would cause the undesirable effects that a depleted ozone layer causes then whoever did would be liable of a tort against the people affected

Except state policies do work, considering that there are no libertarian societies that are as successful as modern mixed economies, and the richest economies all have government involvement.

@@2vexy Except all available evidence suggests mixed economies are worse off due to their state involvement. History also suggests the closer nations flirt with free markets the better they do. These rich economies succeed in spite of their government involvement not because of.

@@tann_man Wrong, the vast majority of empirical literature suggests that state involvement in the form of public investment and welfare spending and such has improved the economies, there is no evidence to suggest that more free markets necessarily makes their economies better. These rich economies succeed precisely because they combine government involvement with markets. Sakamoto 2020: Data from 17 industrial countries are analyzed. The analysis finds that family support, education, and ALMP spending (all measured as spending per child, student, and an unemployed person, respectively) is positively associated with MFP and GDP growth, and that MFP growth is the main channel through which SI policies enhance GDP growth. Education spending boosts the growth of all of MFP, physical capital stock, labor input, and GDP growth via those channels. Overall, these types of SI spending have generally positive effects on economic growth. "The Welfare State and Antipoverty Policy in Rich Countries" by Marx, Nolan and Olivera shows that no advanced economy achieved a low level of inequality and/or relative income poverty with a low level of social spending, regardless of how well that country performed on other dimensions that matter for poverty, notably employment. Vice versa, countries with relatively high social spending tended to have lower inequality and poverty. Olds 2016 showed that public health insurance (CHIP and SCHIP) substantially (15%) increased the rate of new business formation by reducing the risk of starting up a business. Demiral & Alper 2016 show that social expenditures in significantly contribute to economic growth in 18 OECD countries. Odedokun 2006 shows that public infrastructure investment promotes economic growth and efficiency using data in 48 developing countries from 1970-1990 Kenworthy 1998 shows that social welfare programs reduce poverty across 15 affluent industrialized nations over the period 1960-91, using both absolute and relative measures of poverty

Every property owner is a state and markets can only regulate moral behavior if people have options which is always limited by natural monopolies who can use coercion upon others which is why a democratic state can be used to control them. Otherwise you just have private war as the balancing act.

what is wrong with Rothbard's argumentum e contrario?

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 His entire argument for self-ownership is based on a false dilemma. He tries to show that non-NAP ethical theories are incoherent, yet reduces them down to two ridiculous strawmen, showing he has absolutely no awareness of how moral philosophers think. Rothbard wrote a lot of good stuff on applied economics and history, but anytime he delves into philosophy it's just embarrassing.

@@NILLOC17 Are there any other ethics beside self-ownership, universal co-ownership, or one class ruling another?

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Yes. The most obvious one being that no one rightfully owns anything. This doesn't mean people can't use their own bodies or other things, it just means they have no enforceable claim to them. It could also be the case that people can own certain things, but not others. Or perhaps you can only own certain things for a certain time. Or you can only own things under certain circumstances. Or a million other possibilities that Rothbard completely ignores, but any educated opponent of libertarianism will bring up right away.

@@NILLOC17 This would delegate a right to aggress to everyone and would thus fall under the universal co-ownership. Only being able to use things nonaggressively under certain circumastances would imply that another party has the superior claim, and would hence fall under one class ruling another.

All you need to do to validate a principle is mark out where it doesn't apply?

@@andrewsherman8574 Not quite. The point is to recognize that it would be nonsensical to apply a principle in a situation that violates it's own foundation. Why do you think he brought up Rand right after giving his two "lifeboat situation" examples? Surely that must seem an odd non sequitur to anyone who doesn't understand why it was important for him to claim to have invalidated her derivation of "ought" from "is".

@@tomcraver9659 I'm getting the impression after the debate and your response I don't understand what other people mean by "principle." It was my understanding that the root of "principle" is first; one can't violate the foundation of a principle because a principle is the foundation.

@@andrewsherman8574 Do you really believe principles are created or accepted without any underlying basis or reason? I suspect not. Principles are based on values. If the application of a principle violates the values on which it is based or from which it is derived, how would that make sense? So either a principle itself is invalid - which is what Friedman is claiming for the NAP - or the principle cannot truly require such a violation, which is what Rand would claim, which is why I believe Friedman interjected his claim to have disproven Rand's basis for morality, to justify his use of 'lifeboat situations' as an argument against the NAP. Just to be clear, I have not read Friedman's claimed counter-proof and can't speak to it's validity. But I see no reason to accept a form of the NAP that requires that I sacrifice my life to avoid violating it. To me, Friedman appears to have created a strawman NAP. Others may think of the NAP as an absolute, no exceptions rule, and I guess they are welcome to fall to their death or allow a mass murderer to kill them, or to throw away an otherwise valid and morally useful principle.

@@tomcraver9659 How are you coming to the moral conclusion that grabbing the flagpole is correct? The point is whatever you are using to come to that conclusion would be the actual principle and the NAP would ultimately just be a derived value. A principle can't have exceptions because its what's used to determine what is correct.

Indeed, which is why adherents to the NAP will always lose to those who wish to be aggressive in society. Those who follow the NAP have no answer to your concerns.

@@davidhebert2045 The NAP allows for self-defense. It's this statist, aggression based society that has allowed pro-noun craziness to prosper. If society fully followed the NAP then anyone demanding wacky pro noun crap could just be ignored; because they would have no access to or ability to influence coercive power.

@@shlockofgod "anyone demanding wacky pro noun crap could just be ignore" Y'all are some of the absolute least empathetic people trying to act like you understand the pinnacle of morality. Wow.

If Bob is about to break Alice's legs with a baseball bat, and Alice only has a gun to defend herself, minimum force would require her to not defend herself, as killing with a gun is "more force" than just a broken leg from a baseball bat. Is that really what you want?

@@CarrotCakeMake Nope. Because if you don't stop Bob, Bob will keep breaking people's legs. So you stop Bob with a gun. I am refuting the NAP as Friedman refuted it, but supplanting it with an appeal to optimizing for low coercion AS PEOPLE DEFINE IT (key thing!) as yet another desired outcome that we can measure to some extent and can manipulate with various legal, cultural, and even semantic discussion and interplay throughout society. Or to frame in a different way: You're assuming that coercion to defend rights is weighted identical to other kinds of coercion. The definition of the amount of coercion initiated can be weighted by the intent of the perpetrator in the mind of the people who elect to negotiate the proper laws, penalties or arbitration court verdicts for various acts of aggression, with discounts for acts that were done in clear defense and were not grossly overdone given the circumstances. This is a nuanced issue with nuanced interpretations. Standards would develop that reflect that.

This whole endeavor of making morality objective is doomed to fail. Opinions are not objective facts.

@@someonenotnoone Yes! That is key to what I am getting at. All these arguments about precisely what little details are acceptable in an anarchist society are mute as soon as we think that that necessarily has to be reflected in it. The whole point of market anarchism or libertarianism, in a sense, is accepting that our opinions are just opinions, and everyone has different ones. In fact, even our understandings of facts are similar to opinions: we all understand things differently too. Regardless of our quest to find the perfect legal system, we can only ever be more or less confident that we have a good approximation of, say, the natural law, or the law dictating gravitation. Newton had an excellent approximation to how the universe works, but like the Zero Aggression Principle, it could only account for so much before the expectation veered off of the reality observed. And yet it is still a correct stance, for most practical things. So when in doubt (literally), respect the subjectivity of opinions.

What is a proof of the "non-aggression principle theorem"?

You mean the proof that it's a theorem and not an axiom?

@@purinat_sun I mean the proof that justifies calling it a theorem

Because the non-aggression principle is ambiguous and can be interpreted to include things that are not infringement and exclude things that are infringement. Non-aggression means no initiation of violence, but what do you mean by violence? Do acts that are literally violent but consensual (e.g., extreme sports, BDSM) constitute violence? Do acts that are literally non-violent but still interfere with an individual's ability to retain control over his or her body or property (e.g., touching someone without his or her consent) constitute violence? What about unnecessary defense and disproportionate retribution, which are not initiation of violence? In other words, the non-aggression principle is simultaneously insufficient and excessive in some respects. If we stick with its ambiguous definition, its application can also be ambiguous and eventually inconsistent. That's the first reason why it's not an axiom. The next reason is concerned with the scope of the word "violence". Why can't the initiation of violence against a tree or a rock constitute an infringement? Why does its applicability have to be limited to persons? After all, violence against non-persons is still violence, and its initiation is therefore the initiation of violence? Because non-persons have no self-ownership while persons do, and the initiation of violence against non-persons does not violate self-ownership. Self-ownership is an axiom from which the non-aggression principle is derived. Without self-ownership, you end up in a situation in which the initiation of non-violence that's not based on consent is a right, consensual violence not a right, and even objects have rights, which is a logical explosion.

@@purinat_sun these are reasons why the principle is not an axiom, but none of them are reasons why it constitutes a theorem. I really can't follow this "if we don't have self-ownership then we do have rights x, y,z" logic. That's not logical to me. None of this business of trying to turn morals into objective rules is logical to me. This is a conflation of value and fact. Not an exercise in logic.

Your body / self and its voluntary effects are a form of property. So any coercion against you is a from of property rights violation.

@@shlockofgod I'd say you could be coerced by a vaguely implied threat that would not be a direct assault on your property, so I argue that coercion is a much less accurate term than aggression. If someone leered at you or looked angrily at you, for example.

Property is hard to define in the first place. You don’t have a right to a piece of land from the center of the earth to the stratosphere. More like violating contacts and rule of law which are imposed on people against their will as a reality of the commons, which is shared property which includes in part your personal actions that result in externalities.

@@bryanutility9609 Don;t know what you;re arguing. I have have called PROPERTY EXPLAINED AND PROVEN on my channel.

@@bryanutility9609 I'd say property is your person, i.e. your body, and any property you legally acquired through money or barter, or were freely given by another.

NAP implies anarcho-capitalism. Most libertarians are minarchists.

@@wolflarson71 ...ie not libertarians at all, really.

@@matthewapsey4869 Even David Friedman thinks market failure might occur in regards to law enforcement and the military under AC.

@@wolflarson71 I know

​@@matthewapsey4869shut up dude, your No True Scottsman fallacy is no good here. Most libertarians have never even heard of the NAP, when Ben Shapiro asked John Stossel about it via the taxation is theft example, Stossel hadn't heard of it.

NAP is libertarians trying to turn "finders keepers losers weepers" into legitimate scholarship. It doesn't work.

No, the NAP just states that the initiation of force cannot be morally justified. It would if applied in reality remove the land ownership claims of a very large amount of people and institutions. The state, for example, doesn't own legitimately own anything.

​@@shlockofgod "wrong things are wrong" is a truism - just like the NAP. "Initiation of force" is just something that is wrong by definition - by opinion. No one has legitimate ownership claims over the land. Your mistake is thinking that only states are in this position. States didn't create the land, and neither did individuals. So neither has rightful ownership claims over it.

@@someonenotnoone Thanks for those opinions.

@@shlockofgod You're quite welcome.

I’m curious, who do you think misrepresented the NAP, Gene or David (since you didn’t mention who)? Also what’re your objections to that person’s arguments?

100%, both of the hypotheticals in the beginning are broken. in the flagpole hypothetical, the only NAP being violated is that of the person who fell, if the owner of the flagpole tries to remove them from it without providing them a way to get down. the person who fell did not contact the flagpole out of aggression or coercion, but by accident. As long as they are in danger, and the flagpole is saving them, the opinion of the flagpole owner is irrelevant. I highly doubt any actual libertarian would do anything but try to help in this case The second one got me thinking, but he's still misunderstanding the implications of the NAP. The Rifle owner is either in the crowd with his rifle, or his rifle is there without him. If the rifle owner has a rifle and isn't dropping the shooter themself, then they are letting the NAP be violated in front of them, and not exercising the most important right that the NAP allows us to exercise, self defense. If the rifle is there without the owner, then more context is needed to determine how that in and of itself is not an NAP violation, since leaving an unattended (and apparently loaded rifle) in a crowd of people is a form of aggression lacking any further context, and the potential thief stealing it an using it could be construed as preventing aggression and coercion from both the shooter and the rifle owner. There are 0 gun owners that I know, libertarian or otherwise, that would ever allow anything like this to happen, they would never let a stranger use their guns in a live fire situation, and they would never leave their guns unattended as would be needed in the second scenario.

@@____________________519 Yes, but if we don't take it as an absolute and allow for accidents, incidentals, and discretion, we're back to moral subjectivity. Who rules on the ambiguous cases? It's typically the party with the monopoly on legal coercion, which becomes an argument for minarchism.

@@EricSmith9000the principle itself is absolute, but the application of any absolute principle is always subjective. A core component of "aggression" as defined by the principal is intent, we know this because coercion is included in its definition, and coercion is the intent to aggress. It can be argued that I'm interpreting this subjectively, but by the same logic so is Friedman when he refuses to consider intent in the hypotheticals. As Epstein pointed out, if you don't take into consideration intent then literally any physical interaction between two people or a person and property they do not own would be considered aggression. None of those interactions are "objectively" aggression, and the opposite is more likely to be true devoid of any context. Most of the time when people want to argue against the nap they have to set this intent component inside, either so coercive people can be coercive but get away with it because they didn't actually touch the property/person, or so that the principle can be applied so broadly that it becomes irrelevant like what Friedman did. If absolute morals could be applied absolutely there would be no ambiguous cases, but the whole point of moral philosophy as a study is to determine how absolute morals can be applied to subjective situations. In practice, we cede the power to decide in the ambiguous cases to the government, but that isn't necessary, all it takes is for the two parties in potential conflict to be able to negotiate with one another. If both parties truly respect the nap, then they can probably come to a negotiated solution without a third-party mediator like the government. If it's absolutely needed, any third-party mediator can fill that role and no need for a monopoly on coercion is required, just a third party who will be trusted and listened to buy both of the first two parties. Obviously a government is more likely to be listened to even if it's less likely to be trusted (or to make a decision with any consideration to the nap), but the NAP itself doesn't really say one way or another beyond that whether minarchism or anarchism is better for getting people to follow it.

@@____________________519 It's a good point. It sounds like this could all be resolved by inventing an intent-o-meter.

Are you a minarchist?

I guess it depends on what that means to you. I do think the government should be limited only to basic functions that are needed for society to function and flourish. I am also open to the idea of welfare for people that can't get help and can't help themselves (such as disabled people) if mutual aid doesn't pan out. Although, you can still be Ancap while rejecting NAP dogma. Along with David Friedman, there is also Michael Huemer, and Bryan Caplan who are also Ancap and do not accept the NAP as it is.

@@84Chadd You think, "Don't rape, murder, steal or assault" is dogma? Which one of these is compatible with an-cap and why?

*"You think, "Don't rape, murder, steal or assault" is dogma?"* That's not how I would put it. I think if the consequential cost becomes large enough then the greater good will outweigh individual rights if there is no other solution. For instance, one could steal a small amount of money if it is used to save a life even if there is no way to pay that person back. If the NAP is absolute, then no cost should be taken into consideration. That person ought to die in that situation according to the NAP. If a dictator was about to nuke the US and we can take him out with a missile, but an innocent person will have to be murdered along with him, the NAP would forbid the trading of 1 innocent life for millions. That is the point I am making. The vast majority of government does not outweigh individual rights IMO. *"Which one of these is compatible with an-cap and why?"* Really, you would have to take it up with someone who espouses that position. I can only try to defend my position. I think I heard Michael Huemer say that even though exceptions can be made to the NAP, that he wouldn't grant one for taxation. I forget what his reasoning was. He might have thought Anarcho-Capitalism was a workable solution, so we don't need to rely on taxation.

@@84Chadd Why does it matter how you would "put it"? That's what the NAP IS. If you reject the NAP then you logically have to accept that murder, rape, theft and assault are all morally permissible. The NAP does not say the person in your scenario should die. It only says that stealing is wrong. The person who does not steal is not the causal factor in the potential death. You can never know the future and so you can never know what the consequences of stealing the money to save the life will be. Perhaps the person you save will die anyway and the person you stole from will get paranoid and depressed and commit suicide (which leads to his wife and children entering poverty and burning to death in a house fire). Maybe taking the dictator out with a missile leads to WW3 and billions die. All these consequentialist scenarios (which are ultimately just manipulative appeals to emotion) are nonsense. Because you don't know the consequences. That's why you need principles. And the NAP is the correct moral principle. And btw, the NAP doesn't say you CAN'T steal a tiny bit of money to save a life. It's not a commandment. It's just tells you there is a moral cost. So you can choose to DO it but the moral responsibility passes to YOU. There are also countless scenarios that are so on the cusp we just can't know if they are moral; so we do our best in good faith. Anarcho-capitalism means no rulers. That means no initiation of force. Violations of the NAP necessarily mean initiating force. So violating the nap and an-cap are not compatible.

If you find an exception to an ethical rule then you should throw it out. For example, there is a rule saying "never stab someone with a knife". You realize surgeons are an exception. You should throw the rule out. Your justification of the rule is wrong. If you try to just tack on the exception without fixing the reasoning behind it, you end up sending tattoo artists to jail.

@@CarrotCakeMake what is that orwellian doublespeak you just said surgeons are exception to the rule of cutting people but you don't throw out the rule that people shouldn't cut other people ? It's also a rule not to commit murder. But when someone's attempting to kill you the exception to the rule is you have the right to kill that preson. The rule is you need to to breathe but when you go under water the rule of breathing goes out window. Come back when can you make sense.

@@CarrotCakeMake in an anarchist society there is never going to be a written set of laws so your argument is mute. Just like in the real-world everything has to be handled one set of circumstances at a time. We don't just say the speed limit is 55 everywhere. We make exceptions for neighborhoods and city streets.

@@CarrotCakeMake perhaps your libertarian, a libertarian is statist that just wants their Masters to put them on a longer leash .

No it isn't. The preeminence of individual liberty and freedom are. The NAP was added later and confused as some grand "first principle" to the ideology. Instead, it is just a value of it, or a method on how to best carry out the ideology. It is not what grounds the ideology itself.

Individual Liberty to live your life and not be aggressors upon unless you are aggressing against them

Why not just throw the first punch? If someone is a threat or an adversary, presents an obstacle, why not just treat them as something to be overcome & act accordingly? Why play defense? If its in someone's self interest to conquer they are totally justified in doing so.

@@bryanutility9609 Because you'd just be running around attacking anyone who doesn't profess to be a libertarian. Being wrong isn't a crime; committing a wrong is.

@@Kimani_White who are you to decide what’s wrong? Wrong is just what you don’t like

@@bryanutility9609 Who are you or anyone else to "decide" what's mathematically correct? You're asking a foolish question and revealing your own profound ethical ignorance in the process. The violation of a natural right is the definition of an ethical wrong; _willful_ rights violations constitute aggression. Hence the *Non-Aggression Principle.*

@@Kimani_White that’s a bunch of mumbo jumbo. The only right of nature is survival of the fittest.

Friedman lost.

Aggression is based on whether an action causes conflict

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 So let's say we have a piece of unowned property, and someone claims ownership of that property, which causes conflict with another person who believes that the person shouldn't own the property. Does that mean ownership of property is aggression?

@@2vexy well we are already muddying waters here with saying something is unowned, do you mean disused or unused or unoccupied?

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Wait, are you saying that it's impossible for something to have ever been unowned property? So was property still owned even before humans existed?

@@2vexy No, I am asking you to clarify what you mean when you say unowned, otherwise I will probably misinterpret your question, based on my adherence to the facts of reality, which considers unowned property to be either unused or disused.

The lack of understanding is in your own feeble mind which doesn't seem to be able to detect a parody of a sports announcer when it hears one. Are sports announcers "not understanding the 100 year old technology" when they shout "Let's Get Ready To Rumble"?

@@rickdoogie749 It's sports, not a field full of geniuses.

So if libertarianism isn't entirely adopted by a country it is useless? Without the effects of libertarian ideology, we could all be living under socialism right now.

It is the same point as abolishing slavery when there wasn't a single government on earth that had abolished slavery

@@tommyzky We are living under socialism right now. The US military are 100% a socialist program. FEMA. Social Security. Medicare. Disability. Worker's Comp. Unemployment Insurance. Any type of insurance whatsoever, private or otherwise is socialist in it's core.

​@@tommyzky Our military is the finest most advanced most powerful millitary with a full volunteer fighting force bar none on planet earth, hard to argue against socialism when you get to witness the gold standard in the flesh.

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I'm telling you all to put it in practice and let's measure it in real-time against other models. Go make a micro-nation and see how it functions separately from the capitalist/socialist whole and how it manages via integration with trade and other metrics.

To aggress is to cause conflict

Strawman argument.... with rudimentary spelling mistakes. You must be a brainlet

Aggression means to initiate force. You understand the difference between rape and defending yourself from a rapist, right?

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 You act like you're saying something objective. What causes conflict is up to the people who say there is a conflict.

@@shlockofgod What initiates force is a moral judgment. There's nothing objective there.