Time For Criticism To Take A NAP

Are there any valid critiques of the Non-Aggression Principle? Have any aspersions been cast against the NAP that cannot be dismissed with good old fashioned logic, reason, and evidence?

I took a gander at the criticism levied against the NAP on Wikipedia, and this is my response:

1. The NAP does not allow for positive rights

Here, philosopher Matt Zwolinski proposes the following scenario: "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?”

The NAP does not allow for positive rights because “positive rights” do not really exist. Suppose we back up 2000 years where there are no billionaires or modern technology in this scenario to even manufacture the vaccine. Do the desperately poor children 2000 years ago have a “right” to vaccines, or any of the luxuries that our modern society affords, when they haven’t yet been developed?

Once those luxuries do become available – what is the mechanism by which people, who do not naturally possess a “right” to a luxury, attain the right to that luxury? For example: If I developed a replicator (like on Star Trek) in a few years – at one point do individuals, who don’t have a right to my replicator right now, suddenly attain the “right” to have one and the tremendous benefits it produces? On who’s authority did they attain a right they didn’t already possess themselves naturally as individuals? How can people today have a right that people in the past did not possess? Until these questions can be rationally answered – there is no evidence that “positive rights” exist. Criticizing the NAP because it doesn’t allow for “positive rights” would be like criticizing the NAP for not protecting against Santa Claus entering our homes without permission.

In this scenario, we must acknowledge the fact that there are a multitude of options to voluntarily pay for that life-saving vaccination, without initiating any aggression at all. In a voluntary society, interest returns from publicly held trust funds (which replaces taxation completely with a voluntary revenue source) could be used to help provide it. If you want to know why we don’t have those publicly held trusts voluntarily funding essential services in society today - Go ask the people who believe we need to “pay our fair share” in taxes to the privately held Federal Reserve system. You’ll get the same answer I get from them – crickets.

The other obvious voluntary mechanism is charity. The company who makes that vaccine would probably jump at the chance to positively advertise it by voluntarily providing it to the desperately poor children. Billionaires might even enlist the help of the public by offering a matching donation to their charitable foundations, and bringing people together in harmony to further the cause.

It’s obvious that it would be morally wrong for me to steal a loaf of bread from someone just because I was hungry, while at the same time the vast majority of people would be voluntarily willing to help me out if I asked, or wanted to trade my labor. Even if I was alone on death’s door, and I was forced to raid a desolate hunting cabin to defend my life (which the NAP allows), it would still be ethically wrong, and I would have no problem making the owner of the cabin whole if they requested.

By resorting to aggression, albeit minor, to benefit one party at the expense of others – one throws away the opportunity for people to work together and build relationships while solving problems. This leads to the insane polarized political system we have today, which is a far greater harm than some poor children dying of a disease.

Furthermore, how can Zwolinski honestly impose a tax on anyone else without providing any evidence he has the authority to do so? Does Zwolinski believe he is made of some “finer clay” than other people? You’ll know if you ask him why he doesn’t support using interest returns from publicly held trust funds instead of compulsory taxation, and he can’t give you a cogent reply.

2. The NAP is not compatible with any practice that produces any pollution

Zwolinski notes: “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.”

Maybe Zwolinski is using some dictionary I’ve never heard of, but when the NAP addresses “aggression”, its using the definitions:

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

(2) hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook, especially when caused by frustration

When some person drives their car by my house, neither of us consider that action “aggression” because there is no evidence which proves it was a “forceful action or procedure especially when intended to dominate or master someone else”. If driving a car was indeed “hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior” - core components of determining “aggression” would be (a) that the person who took the action did so knowing the action was morally wrong (aka “hostile”), (b) there would need to be evidence of injury (aka “injurious”), and (c) there would need to be actual damages (aka “destructive”)

It’s seems pretty sensible that all risks are permissible when the individual(s) taking the risk knows they will be held accountable for any harm they do. The right to throw a punch ends at my face, but rational people aren’t going to throw that punch at my face if they know there will be serious consequences. Accountability is the greatest form of regulation because it will make people cognizant of their actions and decisions.

If we have a system of justice where all people are held equally accountable in proportion to their actions, and people are aware they will bear the cost if they harm/injure others – that provides the necessary regulation of what risks are justifiable, and which are not. We also need to consider if the person who took the risk did due diligence to prevent harm to others. Those considerations might not carry weight with the NAP, but those considerations carry serious weight with those who adhere to the NAP and believe that living honestly, giving every person their due, and doing no harm, is the proper way of life for mature and responsible people.

3. Innocent people problem.

In case of the runaway trolley, headed for five victims tied to the track, NAP does not allow a trolley passenger to flip the switch that diverts the trolley to a different track if there is a person tied to that track. That person would have been unharmed if nothing was done, therefore by flipping the switch NAP is violated.

If a person is forced to make a decision to mitigate harm, that in turn results in harm to others – they aren’t committing “aggression”, they are simply responding to the circumstances of their situation. If I was the passenger on the trolley and saw that the five bound victims looked like lawyers, I probably wouldn’t throw that switch at all. That wouldn’t mean I initiated a forceful action against anyone, or that my reaction was 'hostile, injurious, or destructive'. The people who bound others to trolley tracks violated the NAP, not me.

In this scenario, the passenger might look at the distance from the track switch to each group of tied up people and feel they have a better chance at mitigating harm by making one decision or another. The passenger might think they could throw the switch and save the one person from harm by attempting to rescue them. The NAP certainly allows the passenger to flip that switch (especially if it means running over 10,000 lawyers to save one engineer and mitigate further harm to society in general) because the passenger hasn’t initiated force. That was done by whoever tied everyone to the tracks.

Similarly, if I was standing by the side of those tracks, I wouldn’t be liable for violating the NAP if I took no action and said, “Man, what did all those people do to deserve being tied to the trolley tracks? They must be lawyers, so I’m not going to risk killing myself.” I didn’t kidnap them and tie them there, the perpetrator did. The perpetrator violated the NAP and is accountable – not me.

4. The NAP doesn’t protect against non-physical aggression

Other critics state that the NAP is unethical because it does not provide for the violent prohibition of, and thereby supposedly legitimizes, several forms of aggression that do not involve intrusion on property rights, such as verbal sexual harassment, defamation, boycotting, noninvasive striking, and noninvasive discrimination.

Just because I don’t believe in violently prohibiting the use of methamphetamines, that doesn’t mean I legitimize their use or abuse. I don’t want people using that garbage and destroying their lives. I’d love to help people break their addictions, and part of that is realizing that sending people with guns to destroy addicts’ lives is not going to achieve that goal. That’s precisely why all the sociopaths (aka lawyers and cops) keep doing it - it’s good for their business model and their personal wealth.

The NAP doesn’t legitimize any form of aggression, physical or not. The NAP just regulates what means we should utilize to address problems in society. In cases where the evidence shows that non-physical aggression was indeed “hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior” - core components of determining “aggression” would be (a) that the person who took the action did so knowing the action was morally wrong (aka “hostile”), (b) there would be evidence of injury (aka “injurious”), and (c) there would need to be actual damages (aka “destructive”).

In the case of verbal sexual harassment - there isn’t any need for violent prohibition. Sure, a person has the right to say whatever they want no matter how disgusting and vile some people might feel – but society also possesses the right under the NAP to call that person a “shit-bag” and universally shun them. It is the fear of being ostracized from society (accountability) that keeps most unethical behavior in check. The NAP just prevents a group of snowflakes from sending government agents with guns after people who say things they find offensive.

Defamation is fine as well, so long as what was said doesn’t cause measurable harm. In the case of someone suffering loss or injury from hostile untrue accusations, the defamer is responsible under the NAP to pay the total consequences of the harm they caused.

No person possesses the right to forcibly prevent someone from boycotting anyone else. Because no individuals possess this right, no group of individuals possesses the authority to convey this right to anyone else, including a government. The NAP prevents any individual, or group of individuals, from forcibly preventing people from opting out.

Discrimination may be "unethical" in our culture – but I think what we need is more discrimination. For example, if someone is a lawyer, we should all agree that this person is a piece of garbage and we should avoid associating with them until they disown their Juris Doctor and start acting like they aren’t narcissistic sociopaths. What kind of freaks would operate a system of justice where the average person cannot defend themselves properly, anyway? If a private business discriminates against people based on race/religion/whatever – people should be free to discriminate against that business with boycotts or strikes if they wish.

The NAP also allows victims of verbal/written threats of imminent physical violence to respond with force. For example, if someone were to honestly say to me, “I’m gonna come over there and beat you to death.” - I have every right to pull a gun and tell that person; “Fuck around, and find out.” So long as the victim has first-hand personal knowledge of the threat, and its credibility – the NAP certainly allows for a violent response to threats of harm or injury.

Because the NAP protects people’s ability to peacefully keep in check behavior society deems “unethical” - the NAP plays the role of “Switzerland” in the battle between unethical/ethical. The NAP doesn’t decide what is ethical or offensive in a culture, just what the morally allowable response should be in any given situation.

5. The NAP is inconsistent in application

Critics argue it is not possible to uphold NAP when protecting the environment as most pollution can never be traced back to the party that caused it. They therefore claim that only general broad government regulations will be able to protect the environment.

I’m not even sure how to follow this casserole of nonsense. If ‘most pollution can never be traced back to the party that caused it’ - How would any government regulations stop people from harming the environment? What government regulation, on the books right now, would stop me from heading to the river right now and dumping in a 5 gallon bucket of used oil and leaving without being caught? How do pieces of paper with words on them stop me from doing anything? What government regulation, right now, would prevent the US Federal Government from being the largest polluter on Earth?

The ultimate solution is to equally prosecute people, regardless of affiliations, who harm the environment and the property of others. If people know they will be held accountable, that will regulate their behavior to ensure they don’t cause harm/injury to anyone else or their property. As far as tracking the pollution back to those responsible – perhaps instead of hiring people with sub-100 IQ’s, we can utilize intelligent people who can do the actual forensic science and find the culprit.

Just because the principle of “do no harm” doesn’t stop anyone from harming others, or holding every single violator accountable - that doesn’t mean the principle itself is wrong and should be subject to criticism. That would be like me criticizing a law against theft because the TSA stole the camera out of my bag at Chicago Midway airport in 2005 and nobody was brought to justice. Absolute brain-dead nonsense.

6. Criticism of NAP as an absolute rather than relative concept

Consequentialist libertarian David Friedman, who believes that the NAP should be understood as a relative rather than absolute principle, defends his view by using a Sorites argument. Friedman begins by stating what he considers obvious: A neighbor aiming his flashlight at someone's property is not aggression, or if it is, it is only aggression in a trivial technical sense. However, aiming at the same property with a gigawatt laser is certainly aggression by any reasonable definition. Yet both flashlight and laser shine photons onto the property, so there must be some cutoff point of how many photons one is permitted to shine upon a property before it is considered aggression. But the cutoff point cannot be found by deduction alone, because of the Sorites paradox, so the non-aggression principle is necessarily ambiguous. Friedman points out the difficulty of undertaking any activity that poses a certain amount of risk to third parties (e.g. flying) if the permission of thousands of people that might be affected by the activity is required.

If someone shined a flashlight on your property with the hostile intent to prevent you from getting sleep, that would be a violation of the NAP. The amount of photons, or their duration, is completely irrelevant to the NAP in this case. The NAP isn’t ambiguous in this context – it’s simply deduced by the standard of harm/injury to others and mens rea.

While a plane flying over my house generally causes no harm or injury to me, and nobody on that plane has hostile intentions towards me – this would not be a violation of the NAP. If the plane crashed into my home because someone knew about a problem with the plane but didn't do due diligence to correct it - that is evidence there was hostility involved because they knew (mens rea) their action/inaction would lead to harm. In cases where people purchased a home next to an airport, so long as they were informed that the airport was nearby and the noise pollution it creates – they voluntarily agree to the environmental conditions of that home when they purchase it.

Most of society capitulates to sources of minor pollution because the benefits those technologies (cars, planes, trains, etc.) bring them vastly outweigh the nuisance. People also constantly work to innovate new technologies and procedures which reduce the amount of noise, light, and other sources of “nuisance” pollution that don’t result in imminent and measurable harm to others.

The NAP also allows for non-violent resolutions to conflict between parties. Say, for instance, your neighbor’s dog barks all the time. While your neighbor may not have any hostile intentions towards you, and dogs will be dogs – the NAP regulates how we should react to the circumstances of the situation. Simple communication can resolve the problem in most cases without the need for any force or violence. The NAP sets the bar for utilizing force in response at "harm/injury", and "hostile intent". If you make your neighbor aware of the nuisance, and they take no action to resolve the problem – the NAP certainly allows for taking forceful action because there is evidence your neighbor has hostile intent. If your neighbor does due diligence and makes a good faith effort to resolve the problem – there is no evidence of hostile intent, and you should continue to peacefully negotiate in good faith to come to a resolution. Force and violence should always be the last resort.

Conclusion

The US Supreme Court set a reasonable standard in Poe v. Ullman when they ruled: “The Court has found unfit for adjudication any cause that 'is not in any real sense adversary,' that 'does not assume the 'honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights' to be adjudicated—a safeguard essential to the integrity of the judicial process, and one which we have held to be indispensable to adjudication of constitutional questions by this Court.”

This standard is also the one by which we should all measure whether or not force is authorized by the NAP. There needs to be a victim, evidence of injury or harm, and evidence that the defendant’s actions are fairly traceable to the harm or injury. A ‘valid cause of action’ under the NAP requires those components, and we should also respect everyone’s natural right to due process in order to resolve disputes.

If we can make this standard the golden rule of our culture and our planet – there isn’t any reason to utilize force anymore because we can stop arguing like worthless human garbage (aka “liawyers”) and start working together like rational adults to solve the problems we face as a people, a culture, and a planet. We don't need rulers, we just need a clear set of universally understood and enforced rules.

The only criticisms of the NAP seem to be spurious in nature. I think the reason that the NAP is not universally accepted is because it is counter to the indoctrination the sociopaths/psychopaths in control of society give to those they wish to control. It’s the largest case of Stockholm Syndrome on the planet.

If we can break that conditioning – I think the NAP can become the sovereign ruler of Earth and we can all work together in harmony to build utopia.