non aggression principle & politics

[Undertoad]

This thread is meant to restart what Radar and I started in the "RIP Reagan" thread. Radar, if you will...

When last we were involved in this, we were trying to determine how the NAP is an all-encompassing coherent "philosophy", and I was asking you questions about what sort of government it leads one to.

as an aside to the confused, the NAP as stated in the LP membership form becomes: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

We were talking about your theoretical neighbor who speeds through a school zone. I think we had determined that, under the NAP, he could be considered as initiating force through putting people at an unreasonable risk.

We had determined that, under the NAP, those at risk could hire agents to prevent the neighbor from speeding.

We had determined that, under the NAP, a disagreement over what constitutes force in this speeding is determined by a judiciary which is appointed or elected.

We had not yet determined what would happen under the NAP if a judiciary acts out of accord with the NAP.

[lookout123]

*pulls seat forward*

[BigV]

*psssst. pass the popcorn*

my before the main event...

Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule? Sure you have. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. [/KJV dialect] It is a fine rule, as good as a rule can be, really. That's why it's called "Golden" to connote it's preciousness. More precious than silver.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Silver Rule? Yeah. Just as one golden coin is as valuable as many silver coins, the Golden Rule is as valuable as many Silver Rules. You're probably wondering when I'm gonna get to the actual Silver Rules. Hehehe, well. If you can't take advantage of a golden coin for whatever reason, you'll have to rely on several silver coins instead. Similiarly, if you find that the Golden Rule can't be applied, then you're stuck with several Silver Rules.

I wouldn't want my neighbor to speed through a school zone; I don't speed through school zones. I deliberately leave the cause and effect ambiguous in this example. While the Golden Rule works, no speeding in school zones occurs. Voila!

Inevitably though, there comes a time when some behavior of mine, while fine by me, is not ok with my neighbor. The Golden Rule is tested. Perhaps my neighbor and I can come together and and out of mutual respect for each other and for the Golden Rule, we can reach and understanding. Perhaps not. The issue could easily be speeding in school zones, or anything else. Perhaps the Golden Rule cannot help in this situation. That makes it a job for the Silver Rules.

They're "lesser" rules, in the sense that they're more specific, they could address the defnitions and consequences of speeding in school zones, for instance. But being silver, they would be less valuable in deciding the consequences for spitting on the sidewalk, or emptying my crankcase into the storm drain, or building a discotech in my backyard, or selling dope in a school zone. See?

The more situations in which you can't appeal to the Golden Rule, (or it's peers), the more situations you'll have to mint a new Silver Rule. As you can probably imagine, there is no limit to the number of scenarios that could result in the production of more Silver Rules. Witness our own laws. The more specific the less useful. A law that is less useful has little value. Compared to a golden coin, a silver coin has little value.

The moral of my story is that although there are limits to the practical application of the Golden Rule, it is in our mutual best interest to attempt to use it alone if possible, but at least use it first, before resorting to lesser coins.

Here endeth the sermon.

[Queen of the Ryche]

I'd come to your church (small c) any time. (A lot easier to follw than Radar's, Guerilla's, etc.)

[BigV]

:tips cap to QotR:

Thanks, ma'am.

[Cyclefrance]

To BigV

Trying to follow your gold and silver approach. Is this similar to cause and effect, in that the silver rules support the golden rule.

For example, silver rules might be (using the school zone as the subject):

1. I drive carefully
2. The school zone is for children
3. I acknowledge that children's actions are unpredictable

which leads to
If (1) I drive carefully, and
if (3) I acknowledge that children's actions are unpredictable

Then the effect is (another silver)
4. I drive even more carefully when there are children about

and next
If (4) I drive even more carefully when there are children about, and
If (2) The school zone is for children

then the effect is (gold)
5. Children are safe/will come to no harm when I drive in the school zone

Maybe not the best example, but hope it allows you to say yay or nay. If nay give me another example to explain what you mean.

Thanks

[Undertoad]

bump?

[Radar]

Actually I believe we did discuss the consequences HERE when I said...

Originally Posted by Radar

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time, or you don't vote for those who appointed him. If his actions are overtly egregious, I suppose you could try to get him disbarred, or fired. If he is using force to violate the rights, property, or person of someone who has not committed a crime (as defined earlier), I suppose you could use force or violence in your own defense against the judge or those following his orders, though I tend to try to solve things peacefully until violence is used against me. Then I don't care whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Nobody is above an ass kicking.

Also, I never said anything about "all encompassing philosophies. I don't believe any philosophy is "all encompassing". I do think it's a flawless ethical philosophy though.

[russotto]

I prefer the Iron Rule, "do unto others as they have done unto you".

As for the guy speeding through the school zone; forget it, you can't do anything about it if you follow the NAP. If you start making imposition of an arbitrary amount of risk into "initiation of force" (and the amount of risk from doing 25mph in a 15mph zone is pretty small compared to other risks accepted daily) which can be legitimately responded to with retaliatory force, you've vitiated the NAP. The amount of paternalistic legislation which can be justified under the "non-imposition of risk" principle is enormous.

The NAP, of course, is not the be-all and end-all of libertarianism; it started as a way of keeping the LP from getting tagged as a revolutionary organization, back when the government was especially oppressive about such things.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The NAP, of course, is not the be-all and end-all of libertarianism. . .

Which is my view of it. Seems to me the sine qua non of libertarianism is to limit the governmental sphere to quite a small part of the life of the polity, rather than any attachment in any degree to an unsustainable (albeit neighborly) philosophy like pacifism. If pacifism is not to kill its practitioner, the practitioner must under certain circumstances discard it in order to survive those circumstances. Almost no other philosophy of life has this problem.

[Undertoad]

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time,

We are at the crux of the matter.

The judge can do whatever he or she likes as long as he or she remains electable/appointable. The judge has no specific burden to follow the NAP; the only burden is to the voters.

Therefore the voters determine the nature of the system. The system is only as principled as the voters are. If they decide that the NAP is not the law of the land, they will abandon it. If they decide that force is required they will vote for it and their will is in effect.

The practical result is pretty much what we see today. The NAP is not in effect, nor will it ever BE in effect as a way to operate between people, because it is simple not how the voters decide.

Politics is inevitable. The practical result of your application of the NAP is that it will never be applied. Is that what you expected? How will you operate as a result?

[Undertoad]

Bump?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We are at the crux of the matter.

The judge can do whatever he or she likes as long as he or she remains electable/appointable. The judge has no specific burden to follow the NAP; the only burden is to the voters.

Actually the judge has a burden to follow the law. And if what the voters want exceeds the legitimate authority of the government, then the whole system is screwed and we have oppression. We've got people voting to steal from other people.

We've end up with 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. At this point, the only option is to have a violent revolution. This does not violate the N.A.P. because it is fighting in your defense, not for conquest, and not to take what belongs to others.

[Undertoad]

But as long as you fight for a minority viewpoint, violent revolution only means the people with the biggest guns win -- pretty much your "worst case" scenario for a people angling for freedom from coersion.

Bigger problem: let's assume that you do indulge in some sort of violence to bring about the government that you want. How would you ensure that the new government does not inevitably fall into the same trap?

You might say you would write a new Constitution, for example, with the wording that you particularly think will work. But isn't that what they did in the first place? Isn't that your whole take - that the plain language of the Constitution is understandable enough already not to violate?

Wouldn't it be folly to indulge in violent revolution without an approach that is guaranteed to be better than the previous?

[Radar]

The goal of a revolution isn't to create a great government. We already had that. The goal is to get those who have taken over government and usurped power out of government and to make all who serve in government fear for thier lives if they step out of line and work toward the best interests of politically influencial campain contributers rather than the best interest of the people.

The Constitution is only a piece of paper. It can't defend itself. Dishonest people have failed to uphold and defend it and actually worked against it. The lazy, apathetic, and ignorant have allowed it to happen. The stupid will always outnumber the intelligent.

The approach is clear. Keep government limited to defending rights, but not defining them or limiting them. Put the rights of the people above all things, and don't allow the desires of millions to infringe upon the rights of a single person.

People need to be educated as to the difference between rights and privileges. They also should learn that nobody's needs entitle them to steal from others and to use government to do it so they sleep better at night.