For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[Liberty1911]

I understand completely. To a great extent, I feel politically homeless.

Yep. Exactly. I quit voting altogether in 2001. I voted this time in an effort to get rid of Obama, but there's no one, other than maybe a handful of Tea Party candidates, that reflect my values. And sadly, it seems many of the Tea Party people have become cogs in the machine themselves.

I'm not really sure what the answer is at this point. Maybe we need a rebirth of the Federalist Party, based strictly on Constitutional Federalism, with a particular focus on the 10th Amendment.

You don't necessarily have to come out against things like Social Security etc., you just commit to returning the authority for maintaining (or not) these programs back to the states.

We could be the Party of Washington.

 

[poptab]

I understand completely. To a great extent, I feel politically homeless.

I think you are a minarchist but labels seem to be construed poorly everywhere.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Webster:
Definition of AGGRESSION

1
: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master


They key here is the word unprovoked.

If you are 'defending' your liberty, then whatever manner of force you may use is no longer 'unprovoked', by definition, and it is therefore not 'aggression'.

Make sense?

I completely understand what it is suppose to mean, and what you are and have been saying that it means.


But if an escalation of force is still considered, "non-aggression" one may be permitted to react to aggressive behavior toward themselves or via the authorities, in ways most would not approve of.

If someone, unprovoked, insults and then slaps me, or simply steps on my toe, shooting them does not violate the ZAP. I am keeping with the zero-agrression principle simply because it was in response to an aggression (no matter how slight) rather than an initiation of aggression.

What I have done was by definition non-aggressive and therfore, any response to my actions from law enforcment or any individual retaliating would then be considered "aggressive". The "law" of the non aggression principle must actually protect me.


If you go to "arrest" someone and they resist, the "authorities" must dominate the other person to detain them. The escalation of force must occur and be escalated by the authorities to a higher level. And although automatically thinking of it escalating in smaller increments than the example I gave above, in principle it is the same.

Non-aggression seems pretty violent.

 

[poptab]

I completely understand what it is suppose to mean, and what you are and have been saying that it means.


But if an escalation of force is still considered, "non-aggression" one may be permitted to react to aggressive behavior toward themselves or via the authorities, in ways most would not approve of.

If someone, unprovoked, insults and then slaps me, or simply steps on my toe, shooting them does not violate the ZAP. I am keeping with the zero-agrression principle simply because it was in response to an aggression (no matter how slight) rather than an initiation of aggression.

What I have done was by definition non-aggressive and therfore, any response to my actions from law enforcment or any individual retaliating would then be considered "aggressive". The "law" of the non aggression principle must actually protect me.


If you go to "arrest" someone and they resist, the "authorities" must dominate the other person to detain them. The escalation of force must occur and be escalated by the authorities to a higher level. And although automatically thinking of it escalating in smaller increments than the example I gave above, in principle it is the same.

Non-aggression seems pretty violent.

Watch where you step and you wont get shot. Seems to me like everyone would pay close attention to where they walk. After all "an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Watch where you step and you wont get shot. Seems to me like everyone would pay close attention to where they walk. After all "an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

As I was typing it I was laughing to myself thinking someone will say "then watch your step"

My nine year old girl bumped into somebody the other day, I guess if they shot her for it I would have no right to respond.

BTW, I do not disagree with the idea of liberty, just the liberties which could easily be taken with the non-aggression principle.

 

[poptab]

As I was typing it I was laughing to myself thinking someone will say "then watch your step"

My nine year old girl bumped into somebody the other day, I guess if they shot her for it I would have no right to respond.

BTW, I do not disagree with the idea of liberty, just the liberties which could easily be taken with the non-aggression principle.

Yea I advocate shooting 9 year girls who bump into you. Grow up.

 

[rambone]

If someone, unprovoked, insults and then slaps me, or simply steps on my toe, shooting them does not violate the ZAP. I am keeping with the zero-agrression principle simply because it was in response to an aggression (no matter how slight) rather than an initiation of aggression.

You are familiar with current self-defense laws correct? You may use deadly force if your life is in danger. When the threat do your life has ceased, you better stop shooting or you could get charged with murder.

For individuals, the concepts are pretty familiar. Dealing with the State is a bit of a change.

 

[steveh_131]

The straw-men in this thread are absolutely hilarious.

First the NAP is the same thing as pacifism.

Now the NAP permits shooting 9-year-old girls for stepping on your toes.

What will you guys come up with next?

 

[level.eleven]

The straw-men in this thread are absolutely hilarious.

First the NAP is the same thing as pacifism.

Now the NAP permits shooting 9-year-old girls for stepping on your toes.

What will you guys come up with next?

Deontological ethics are rather easy to deconstruct.

The Trolley Problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

[level.eleven]

No one has brought it up yet, but voting violates the NAP on a grand scale.

 

[poptab]

Deontological ethics are rather easy to deconstruct.

The Trolley Problem
Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have taken ethics classes and various philosophy classes. I wouldnt consider them easy. They are called dilemmas for good reason.

 

[poptab]

No one has brought it up yet, but voting violates the NAP on a grand scale.

This can and has been argued. I can see how it could be construed as self defense. I wouldnt say it is a strong case. Voting does present problems.

 

[steveh_131]

I have taken ethics classes and various philosophy classes. I wouldnt consider them easy. They are called dilemmas for good reason.

Agreed. There's nothing 'easy' about it.

 

[Liberty1911]

I have taken ethics classes and various philosophy classes. I wouldnt consider them easy. They are called dilemmas for good reason.

The problem with the Trolley Problem is that it assumes you have a moral responsibility to effect the outcome of circumstances beyond your control.

I'm not necessarily saying you don't, but the problem disappears if you don't make that assumption.

 

[dustjunky2000]

I'm a Libertarian, but a pacifist I am not. I love the non-aggression principle, but there are, IMO things that justify violence, and even killing if necessary. Resisting tyranny and oppression are among these things. When liberty is lost, sometimes violence is the only solution. Freedom, to me is far more important than anything that exists. Liberty or death. Simple as that.

 

[level.eleven]

Another one, just for fun, parents disciplining their children.

 

[steveh_131]

There's certainly plenty of wrinkles to discuss, but that is true of any discussion of ethics.

 

[level.eleven]

There's certainly plenty of wrinkles to discuss, but that is true of any discussion of ethics.

Winkles? NAP is an absolute statement. Absolutism is a glaring weakness of deontological ethics. A main reason why it makes for an inadequate core idea of libertarianism. Or, libertarianism is itself inadequate philosophy. Perhaps that is why it isn't popular on a national scale. Perhaps that is why the best example given is tribal Celts - of which could just as easily be described as warlord socialism.

NAP plus a laundry list of ever growing exceptions.

 

[arthrimus]

Another one, just for fun, parents disciplining their children.

Disciplining your child is not an act of aggression. If your child violates a stated rule of the house, then they have acted in aggression against the house. As the leader of the house it is the parent's obligation to respond to the violation.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Disciplining your child is not an act of aggression. If your child violates a stated rule of the house, then they have acted in aggression against the house. As the leader of the house it is the parent's obligation to respond to the violation.

After reading your first sentence, I thought I knew where you were going with your statement... "Its not an act of aggression, it is an act of love".

Wow did I ever miss that. lol