Critique:
"The problem with libertarianism is the non aggression principle. Without an objective authority to rule on what actions do & do not constitute aggression, folks would be left to make the determination themselves. This would mean a wide disparity & might ruling over right & whim ruling over reason"
My Response:
folks would be left to make the determination themselves.
As it stands now "folks" are left to make the determination themselves. You know who they are? Psychopathic individuals in "government."
NAP is easy, common sense, and logical. WAAAAAAYYYYY more so than the arbitrary psychopathic dictates of the state.
I NO HURT YOUR BODY YOUR THINGS, YOU NO HURT MY BODY MY THINGS
Property can be very clearly defined by the foundational tenet of all true libertarianism, individual self-ownership.
Gray areas and debates may come up, sure. They come up now around the nonsensical and violent laws of the state. Why not opt to deal with these "gray areas" in a philosophy not built on violence?
Look around. Do you see reason ruling over whim now? Of course not. The extant state was designed on whim, PURPOSEFULLY. Namely, the "divine right to rule."
~*~
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
The ZAP. It's only "hard" if you want to make it hard. It's not a "thou shalt not", it is a promise from me to you. Telling you how I will treat you, and what to expect from me if you violate me (or anyone in my presence).
In many countries, violence and aggression are adopted by groups of supposedly ordinary people who have nothing to do with government. Radical religious groups and extremists are among those groups I am talking about. They may look peaceful but condemn the society (as well as government) for not following their ideologies which for them is the ultimate solution for every problem. Deep down they are seeking power and anticipating an opportunity to enforce their ideologies on the whole society. The question is; how to bring those groups to a consensus of NAP?
You can't bring anyone to a consensus and trying to do so will only lead to aggression, which is the very thing they are doing. The NAP recognises that you can't force your will onto others, but you should be able to protect yourself when others try to do that to you.
In many countries we have reached a point where we can't even protect ourselves from aggression for fear of recrimination from "authorities"
I didn't mean bringing people to consensus by force as it is against the very essence of the NAP, but it is about protection of those who adopt violence as means of imposing their ideologies.
These countries are exactly what I am talking about. The majority are illiterate and can be easily swayed by self-righteous groups. In order to peacefully end aggression all parties shall peacefully reach consensus which is impossible there.
Sorry, I probably didn't explain that very well and I realise you didn't mean by force. What I was trying to say was that you can only bring someone to a concensus if they are willing to come to one. If they aren't willing then they can't be brought to one and there is no point pushing that because you risk becoming like them yourself. Does that make sense?
I think the majority in many countries can be easily swayed. It's hard work being responsible for yourself and it's easier to let someone else dictate behaviour.
Agreed. I think it might be impossible most places unless we all miraculously evolve to become reasonable people.
That is true. It actually requires tremendous effort to promote such radical change to people.
What you describe is not that different from current statism, only that the groups you mention are not in power yet but are fighting for it. The tools to beat them are the same as for dethroning the current rulers.
In my opinion the answer is connected to the properties of aggression. You can game-theoretically insure yourself against being a victim of aggression, but you cannot insure yourself as the aggressor against retaliation. Giving the ability to organise without the involvement of trust, we can protect each other without needing to have anyone in power that guarantees our safety. Instead we would have a distributed network of security that is designed to protect our liberties. Of course this has never been tried and we have no idea how it would work, but we now have the technology and I hope we will see experiments on these ideas soon.
That is exactly what I have been thinking. It is not something that historically proven effective or not, we still don't know If we can distribute the defense force specially when you defend against centralized one. Which leads us to a rule that; either all parties of a single society honestly, trustfully and voluntarily come to a mutual consensus of discarding aggression or the power will move violently from one party to another except for the party who calls for peace.
I dont think this is what I was implying. Yes, it is not historically proven. But the majority of common sense people can defend against centralised attack. There are many examples of that. The historical problem always has been that via corruption new power structures did emerge and the peoples revolt against suppression turned into the next type of dictatorship.
This is why blockchain can add an important new part to the puzzle in organising completely without hierarchies and fully decentralised. These systems are much harder to compromise and may enable the common sense people to protect their liberties without the need to have any rulers guaranteeing them. Its rules without rulers and order without authority.
Hope one day we can attain this "Rules without rulers and order without authority". :)
This is true. These individuals need not be brought to consensus for the truth to remain the only ethical means upon which to build any society or community is by respecting the metaphysical, objective, biological reality of individual self-ownership.
Those that continue to wish to steal, harm, rape, and murder must often be defended against with force.
Of course I didn't mean to forcefully bring them to consensus. I meant that these groups believe that the freedom of others Is a breach of religious, universal, or nature laws and this breach should be ended even by resorting to force to ensure the integrity of the society and to protect the masses for those freedom seekers.
Actually I don't hesitate to claim that those who passively adopt violence are the majority in most of third-world countries.
Thus, I believe they fall to the classification of those who must be defended against which brings us back to the need of force which in turn means that NAP is not an absolute principle that can be applied peacefully everywhere. That brings me to the next question; How to organize the needed force of defense and make sure it is not going to be misused??
The Non-Aggression Principle does not and never has precluded defensive force. The NAP and ISO (individual self-ownership) have never been pacifistic in nature. Defensive force is part of the NAP. And ISO is indeed an immutable natural reality. You have the most direct objective link to your body/mind and its actions.
I think you may still be thinking in terms of centralized mass governance here. The following video might help a bit.
Honestly, though, it does not matter if we know how everything would work. It is a moral imperative. One does not need to know "who will pick the cotton" in order to correctly know and pronounce that slavery should be ended.
The competitive private protection agencies along with other agencies seem brilliant idea despite the risks involved and the difficulty of presenting it to the average person and for me it worth trying.
But if the problem is with the corrupt governments and not with the concept of authority itself why don't we find means to correct them, Taking into consideration that the private defense firms that is going to protect you, clear your where-about, pay a fine for you, and have the ability to submit your papers to media as a dangerous individuals enjoys new kind of authority over you in such a way we don't yet fully grasp, and might also become corrupted overtime.
Frankly, I got the impression that everything is well known because of the enthusiasm and the confidence for the NAP and Anarchism you guys speak with.
Of course, You don't have to see all the way before you start but with regard to the political roller coaster my country has experienced the last 6 years I can claim that good intentions only don't guarantee success specially when you deal with well experienced state guys and machiavellian opposition.
Right. It’s not about “good intentions,” but the fact that slavery and theft are wrong, and should thus be abolished, regardless of logistics.
Should black slavery have remained in the US until the problem of farming and harvesting cotton was completely solved? Or should immoral acts be ended regardless?
The logistics actually are of great importance and shall be taken care of in order not to be used for a different kind of immoral acts by a different group of people who may take advantage of the good intentions of others.
Self-Ownership or Self-rule can be extended to groups.
Something humans naturally do, their called hierarchies.
Aside from that I had a question, does the NAP apply to those who reject it?
There is nothing wrong with organising in groups if that is done on a voluntary basis. We organise in families, people that have similar interests and so on. No violence required. Hierarchies are also fine so-long as the ones at the bottom can simply quit. Most people will not want to care about everything themselves and follow the lead of others they trust.
The NAP applies to everyone. With the people that reject the NAP the question is really about self-defence. You may react to violence, but not initiate it. The NAP is opposed to the offensive use of violence only. And anyone that takes the NAP seriously will obviously argue against using violence against people that reject the NAP, such political statists.
Self-ownership as defined by the voluntaryist philosophy is defined based on biological and metaphysical reality. I cannot speak for you more directly than you can, or move your arms for you directly, as you can. You are the highest, most direct executor of your body and mind’s actions. Thus, this self-ownership can never extend to groups/collectives. As Mises said, “Only the individual thinks. Only the individual acts.”
Any individual rejecting the NAP may do so ethically only if this individual does not act on said rejection in violence. One may reject that others should not be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise violated, but those that believe they should not are still self owners who have not consented to such abuses, regardless of the rejector’s predilections and feelings. In rejecting this, though, one also rejects one’s own natural law right not to be violated.
In order for a minimally violent community/society anywhere to be created, this respect for self-ownership objectively must be the grundnorm, otherwise, arbitrary, non-reality-based ideas such as “divine right” inevitably potentiate and create violent conflict.
Remember when we were kids, the my body song in education about not talking to strangers and all that stuff.
"My body's nobody's body but mine..."
Let's change that to: "My body's nobody's property but mine!" XD