If Libertarians are Classic Liberals What do You Call Liberals and Conservatives?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Larken and other prominent Anarchist philosophers are misguided as well. You'll never go from a statist/authoritarian government to Anarchy. That's where minarchy/minarchist come into play. If Anarchists truly want anarchy - they'll have to support minarchy first (some do...which is why the LP has AnCaps that vote for the LP). Even then, i doubt we'll ever see true anarchy due to the classic back and forth debate of who enforces what rules without a "ruler". I understand the principles of NAP, but even it's flawed - which is why I never claim to be libertarian, even though i side more with libertarian principles than any other statist party.
What's flawed about the NAP?
I also disagree that minarchism is a prerequisite for anarchy. I suppose it's possible but just speaking from experience I went straight from socialist/communist to socialist-anarchist to finally anarcho-capitalist (anarchist).
Something just "clicked" with me. Then I started reading Rothbard, Spooner, Kokesh, etc.
I also disagree that minarchism is a prerequisite for anarchy. I suppose it's possible but just speaking from experience I went straight from socialist/communist to socialist-anarchist to finally anarcho-capitalist (anarchist).
Something just "clicked" with me. Then I started reading Rothbard, Spooner, Kokesh, etc.
Prohibits All Pollution – As I noted in my last post, Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world. And this is deeply implausible.
Prohibits Small Harms for Large Benefits – The NAP prohibits all pollution because its prohibition on aggression is absolute. No amount of aggression, no matter how small, is morally permissible. And no amount of offsetting benefits can change this fact. But suppose, to borrow a thought from Hume, that I could prevent the destruction of the whole world by lightly scratching your finger? Or, to take a perhaps more plausible example, suppose that by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, I could provide life-saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children? Even if we grant that taxation is aggression, and that aggression is generally wrong, is it really so obvious that the relatively minor aggression involved in these examples is wrong, given the tremendous benefit it produces?
All-or-Nothing Attitude Toward Risk – The NAP clearly implies that it’s wrong for me to shoot you in the head. But, to borrow an example from David Friedman, what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five? Of course, almost everything we do imposes some risk of harm on innocent persons. We run this risk when we drive on the highway (what if we suffer a heart attack, or become distracted), or when we fly airplanes over populated areas. Most of us think that some of these risks are justifiable, while others are not, and that the difference between them has something to do with the size and likelihood of the risked harm, the importance of the risky activity, and the availability and cost of less risky activities. But considerations like this carry zero weight in the NAP’s absolute prohibition on aggression. That principle seems compatible with only two possible rules: either all risks are permissible (because they are not really aggression until they actually result in a harm), or none are (because they are). And neither of these seems sensible.
No Prohibition of Fraud – Libertarians usually say that violence may legitimately be used to prevent either force or fraud. But according to NAP, the only legitimate use of force is to prevent or punish the initiatory use of physical violence by others. And fraud is not physical violence. If I tell you that the painting you want to buy is a genuine Renoir, and it’s not, I have not physically aggressed against you. But if you buy it, find out it’s a fake, and then send the police (or your protective agency) over to my house to get your money back, then you are aggressing against me. So not only does a prohibition on fraud not follow from the NAP, it is not even compatible with it, since the use of force to prohibit fraud itself constitutes the initiation of physical violence.
Parasitic on a Theory of Property – Even if the NAP is correct, it cannot serve as a fundamental principle of libertarian ethics, because its meaning and normative force are entirely parasitic on an underlying theory of property. Suppose A is walking across an empty field, when B jumps out of the bushes and clubs A on the head. It certainly looks like B is aggressing against A in this case. But on the libertarian view, whether this is so depends entirely on the relevant property rights – specifically, who owns the field. If it’s B’s field, and A was crossing it without B’s consent, then A was the one who was actually aggressing against B. Thus, “aggression,” on the libertarian view, doesn’t really mean physical violence at all. It means “violation of property rights.” But if this is true, then the NAP’s focus on “aggression” and “violence” is at best superfluous, and at worst misleading. It is the enforcement of property rights, not the prohibition of aggression, that is fundamental to libertarianism.
What About the Children??? – It’s one thing to say that aggression against others is wrong. It’s quite another to say that it’s the only thing that’s wrong – or the only wrong that is properly subject to prevention or rectification by force. But taken to its consistent extreme, as Murray Rothbard took it, the NAP implies that there is nothing wrong with allowing your three year-old son to starve to death, so long as you do not forcibly prevent him from obtaining food on his own. Or, at least, it implies that it would be wrong for others to, say, trespass on your property in order to give the child you’re deliberately starving a piece of bread. This, I think, is a fairly devastating reductio of the view that positive duties may never be coercively enforced. That it was Rothbard himself who presented the reductio, without, apparently, realizing the absurdity into which he had walked, rather boggles the mind.
The trolley problem has a NAP-acceptable position.
Quote:
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
The correct choice is #1 and clearly follows the NAP. Why? Because the NAP states that initiation of force is unacceptable. You may only use force in self-defense.
Barring a contract with the five men tied to the tracks you are not required to do anything...morally speaking. You did not iniatiate force in the situation. Even if you have a contract with them the NAP would be a tenet therefore throwing the switch to save them (and killing the lone guy) would be prohibited in said contract.
It's amazingly simple and consistent. There is no dilemma. The five men die. NAP upheld.
Ill have to get back to you on the other points, mkpunk.
You could Google the responses to that essay you cited criticizing the NAP. Many people have successfully debunked them already. If not, I'll break it down later.
The correct choice is #1 and clearly follows the NAP. Why? Because the NAP states that initiation of force is unacceptable. You may only use force in self-defense.
Barring a contract with the five men tied to the tracks you are not required to do anything...morally speaking. You did not iniatiate force in the situation. Even if you have a contract with them the NAP would be a tenet therefore throwing the switch to save them (and killing the lone guy) would be prohibited in said contract.
It's amazingly simple and consistent. There is no dilemma. The five men die. NAP upheld.
OK so when you talk about "contract" does that mean if your parent(s), your significant other and/or your child(ren) you cannot commit yourself to throw the switch just to kill some guy you may not know vs. someone you love? I think I've seen this logic before and a LOT of people didn't agree with it before when not used with the NAP. As posted below, this is Michael Dukakis' response to the death penalty question in 1988 that basically derailed his presidential hopes. People's heads cannot wrap around not be able to prevent the death of a loved one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9_pRmRlzY4
My moral theory is moral plurality based on the situation (in a way utility) making it permissible to throw the switch as it would save four more people than the original would. Many people have this view without even knowing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Ill have to get back to you on the other points, mkpunk.
You could Google the responses to that essay you cited criticizing the NAP. Many people have successfully debunked them already. If not, I'll break it down later.
And through the proper lens you can also get you to criticize the criticism to the NAP from that article.
As for fraud, it isn't an actually an act of force. Mainly because as the criticism I posted stated, the NAP at it base is not to harm prior to an action.
OK so when you talk about "contract" does that mean if your parent(s), your significant other and/or your child(ren) you cannot commit yourself to throw the switch just to kill some guy you may not know vs. someone you love? I think I've seen this logic before and a LOT of people didn't agree with it before when not used with the NAP. As posted below, this is Michael Dukakis' response to the death penalty question in 1988 that basically derailed his presidential hopes. People's heads cannot wrap around not be able to prevent the death of a loved one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9_pRmRlzY4
My moral theory is moral plurality based on the situation (in a way utility) making it permissible to throw the switch as it would save four more people than the original would. Many people have this view without even knowing it.
And through the proper lens you can also get you to criticize the criticism to the NAP from that article.
As for fraud, it isn't an actually an act of force. Mainly because as the criticism I posted stated, the NAP at it base is not to harm prior to an action.
I throw the switch for no one.
Fraud is an act of aggression. Though contract law and further scrutiny in regards to mens rea and actus rea would be needed when cases came before resolution councils.
The NAP is based on the above mentioned mens rea and actus rea concepts.
By the mere existence of another human (therefore possibly limiting the resources of you) the NAP is not violated. Intent and outside the bounds of human functions (breathing, passing gas, talking...all of which can negatively impact another) must be considered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I've seen this logic before and a LOT of people didn't agree with it before when not used with the NAP. As posted below, this is Michael Dukakis' response to the death penalty question in 1988 that basically derailed his presidential hopes. People's heads cannot wrap around not be able to prevent the death of a loved one. 
