Author Topic: NAP  (Read 295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sacredfire222

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +51
NAP
« on: October 19, 2017, 04:32:03 PM »
0
Our entire planet runs on aggression. The military industrial complex - aggression, the entire meat industry, aggression.    Much sex - aggression.  Conquering throughout history - aggression.  The challenge with standing up to aggression is that the aggressors can simply shoot you and continue aggressing.  It's impossible to stand up to aggression because aggression is aggressive.  It kills opposition and just continues on it's way.  Anyone who aggression doesn't kill, just wounds is dealt with through religion, by placing the onus of "forgiveness" on the victim, so they restore love in their heart, heal from their wounds and continue on until the next act of aggression.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 04:35:54 PM by sacredfire222 »

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: NAP
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2017, 09:09:03 PM »
0
Our entire planet runs on aggression. The military industrial complex - aggression, the entire meat industry, aggression.    Much sex - aggression.  Conquering throughout history - aggression.  The challenge with standing up to aggression is that the aggressors can simply shoot you and continue aggressing.  It's impossible to stand up to aggression because aggression is aggressive.  It kills opposition and just continues on it's way.  Anyone who aggression doesn't kill, just wounds is dealt with through religion, by placing the onus of "forgiveness" on the victim, so they restore love in their heart, heal from their wounds and continue on until the next act of aggression.

That doesn't make it right, it also proves the NAP right.  This world has had many awful incidents in it's history and it's all because of aggression......just an FYI aggression in self defense is perfectly allowable in terms of the NAP.

Marc Moïni

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +53
    • marcmoini.com
Re: NAP
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2017, 08:47:12 AM »
+1
just an FYI aggression in self defense is perfectly allowable in terms of the NAP.

For clarity: aggression is never acceptable in terms of the NAP. Hence the name, Non-Aggression Principle.

I guess you understand this and you meant that using force doesn't necessarily violate the NAP. Because using force is not aggression when it's in self-defense.

But I would like more care when making assertions the way you do. I already see too much confusion from people such as Molyneux who pretend to be experts on things they keep getting mixed up about, and I see this doing harm to the ideas of liberty.
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

JimJesus

  • #ArizonaIcedOutBoys
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • "I thought they taught philosophy over there."
  • Respect: +96
    • Jim Jesus
Re: NAP
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2017, 08:31:00 PM »
+1
I'm not a NAPper when it comes as a moral axiom nor a legal framework, but I think it's a a good 'rule of thumb.' It has faults but this is a pretty bad retort to the NAP because it fails to grasp the keyword; initiation. When it comes to animals then there needs to be an understanding of who the NAP applies to and what it does not. Does it include only humans? When it comes to ethics that's what most ethical philosophies say because humans (as far as we know) are the only moral actors. Some include more groups like dolphins, whales, and octopi because they have more cognizance. Some include any sentient life. But all of these groups make exceptions for non-sentient life like plants and fungi. That's a separate debate but it doesn't mean the NAP is refuted because any ethical philosophy is subject to that same debate.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: NAP
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2017, 11:48:18 AM »
0
just an FYI aggression in self defense is perfectly allowable in terms of the NAP.

For clarity: aggression is never acceptable in terms of the NAP. Hence the name, Non-Aggression Principle.

I guess you understand this and you meant that using force doesn't necessarily violate the NAP. Because using force is not aggression when it's in self-defense.

But I would like more care when making assertions the way you do. I already see too much confusion from people such as Molyneux who pretend to be experts on things they keep getting mixed up about, and I see this doing harm to the ideas of liberty.

Come on man that is way too technical. 

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: NAP
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2017, 11:55:35 AM »
0
I'm not a NAPper when it comes as a moral axiom nor a legal framework, but I think it's a a good 'rule of thumb.' It has faults but this is a pretty bad retort to the NAP because it fails to grasp the keyword; initiation. When it comes to animals then there needs to be an understanding of who the NAP applies to and what it does not. Does it include only humans? When it comes to ethics that's what most ethical philosophies say because humans (as far as we know) are the only moral actors. Some include more groups like dolphins, whales, and octopi because they have more cognizance. Some include any sentient life. But all of these groups make exceptions for non-sentient life like plants and fungi. That's a separate debate but it doesn't mean the NAP is refuted because any ethical philosophy is subject to that same debate.

Yes it's only humans, animals don't count under the rule of law.  I'm sorry but I don't see any faults in the NAP.  None what so ever.  what faults do you find in this??  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

JimJesus

  • #ArizonaIcedOutBoys
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • "I thought they taught philosophy over there."
  • Respect: +96
    • Jim Jesus
Re: NAP
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2017, 12:54:16 PM »
+1
I'm not a NAPper when it comes as a moral axiom nor a legal framework, but I think it's a a good 'rule of thumb.' It has faults but this is a pretty bad retort to the NAP because it fails to grasp the keyword; initiation. When it comes to animals then there needs to be an understanding of who the NAP applies to and what it does not. Does it include only humans? When it comes to ethics that's what most ethical philosophies say because humans (as far as we know) are the only moral actors. Some include more groups like dolphins, whales, and octopi because they have more cognizance. Some include any sentient life. But all of these groups make exceptions for non-sentient life like plants and fungi. That's a separate debate but it doesn't mean the NAP is refuted because any ethical philosophy is subject to that same debate.


Yes it's only humans, animals don't count under the rule of law.  I'm sorry but I don't see any faults in the NAP.  None what so ever.  what faults do you find in this??  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
Part IV is a good attack on it from a consequential approach. On a more deontological level it's just purely an abstraction and isn't objective. It's a subjective preference as any ethical philosophy.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Respect: +1
Re: NAP
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2017, 06:45:08 PM »
0
I'm not a NAPper when it comes as a moral axiom nor a legal framework, but I think it's a a good 'rule of thumb.' It has faults but this is a pretty bad retort to the NAP because it fails to grasp the keyword; initiation. When it comes to animals then there needs to be an understanding of who the NAP applies to and what it does not. Does it include only humans? When it comes to ethics that's what most ethical philosophies say because humans (as far as we know) are the only moral actors. Some include more groups like dolphins, whales, and octopi because they have more cognizance. Some include any sentient life. But all of these groups make exceptions for non-sentient life like plants and fungi. That's a separate debate but it doesn't mean the NAP is refuted because any ethical philosophy is subject to that same debate.


Yes it's only humans, animals don't count under the rule of law.  I'm sorry but I don't see any faults in the NAP.  None what so ever.  what faults do you find in this??  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
Part IV is a good attack on it from a consequential approach. On a more deontological level it's just purely an abstraction and isn't objective. It's a subjective preference as any ethical philosophy.


What this guy fails to realize is intent.  Turning on your lights is not intending on violating property rights and you'd have to look out your window to even see it.  Simple unintentional light doesn't violate any property rights.

No Carbon Dioxide doesn't cause health problems and is simply plant food.  This does not violate the NAP.  It's something you can't see and you can't even taste on top of that.  It doesn't even cause a slight violation of the NAP.  There is no aggression what so ever.

No because if someone commits aggression, you are allowed to respond.  It's not even just about knocking out the gun.  You can kill him because the intent was to kill you.  Aggression is okay in self defense.

No because unless your intend is to crash into another person's yard you are not intending to commit aggression on another person or destroy their property.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't help pay for the property you destroyed however.

This is getting crazy,  these are all ridiculous arguments.  Does it get any better??  Because I'm done for now.  Thanks for the PDF but it's not anything I haven't heard before.

See this is what I'm talking about with the pseudo-debunking.  Just because something like this sounds legit to you, doesn't mean it actually is.  In your opinion these arguments debunk the NAP in my view the NAP stands strong.

JimJesus

  • #ArizonaIcedOutBoys
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • "I thought they taught philosophy over there."
  • Respect: +96
    • Jim Jesus
Re: NAP
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2017, 08:34:33 AM »
+1
Your argument hinges on consequentialiam not deontological ethics as the NAP is. Doesn't matter what the outcome is, you ought not do it. If you are taking the position it's OK to violate property rights or put others at risk of injury or death so long as the risks are low or the outcome doesn't cause harm then you are no longer ascribing the the NAP as an ethical framework. You are taking a purely consequentialist ethical position which contradicts the NAP.

So congratulations, you just refuted the NAP.


Quote
See this is what I'm talking about with the pseudo-debunking.  Just because something like this sounds legit to you, doesn't mean it actually is.
Projection is an ugly thing.