fayfreethinkers.com

Same problem - how are we going to get an agreement what constitutes "good" behavior. Nice thought - quite libertarian, in fact.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Same problem - how are we going to get an agreement what constitutes "good" behavior.

DAR
That's the punchline to the joke!

Barbara wrote:Your PDA v. my PDA is still just the biggest army/thugs/whatever wins. I'd rather have an over all government...

Yes, the logic of your position requires a world government. But I disagree with your claim that "biggest army/thugs/whatever wins." Even among monopoly defense agencies (States), many disputes are resolved through negotiation or prearranged convention. There are treaties, extradition agreements, and so on. There isn't a war whenever a dispute arises between a US and Canadian citizen.

Why is this? It is because armed conflict is more expensive than negotiation. This is even more true for private PDAs than States, since PDAs cannot shove the costs onto citizen-serfs like States do. PDAs have to be more cost conscious, since that have to attract customers who can easily switch if they charge too much. Thus, negotiated solutions are more likely among PDAs than States.

Barbara wrote:For a NAP to work, all the participants have to be honest.

Are you kidding? PDAs will be much more effective than States in providing defense services. Get real. Monopolies are notoriously bad (and expensive) at what they do.

Darrel wrote:Half the time it's [aggression] very subjective. People feel aggressed against but who decides? Something like 70% of the military in Iraq, and probably more than half of the US thinks Iraq "aggressed" against the US via Osama and 9/11.

But objectively we know that the govt of Iraq had nothing to do with driving planes into the WTC and Pentagon. The subjective element you speak of is not fuzziness in determining aggression; rather it is the well-known bias in judging one's own case. Yes, many USAmericans brainlessly identify with their oppressor, and lose all objectivity when hyped by their rulers. But what would the Delai Lama or random residents of Bangalore say?

Darrel wrote:You think my having a howitzer on the front yard (can I aim it at my neighbors house?) is not aggression.

Is mere possession an initiation of force? I think we would agree that it is not. Is aiming a loaded howitzer (or pistol) at someone a threat of force. I think we would agree it is. Seems pretty clearcut, especially compared to utilitarianism or other alternatives.

Darrel wrote:Initiated force can be obvious, but it's the many times that it is not obvious...

I agree; that is why defining property rights is important. What constitutes aggression depends on property conventions. So can we agree that most of the time aggression is obvious, but in some cases (especially regarding true threats and unspecified property systems) it can be vague? (But less vague than the alternatives.)

That is why competing legal systems and PDAs are so important - so people can associate with known threat and property conventions, and thereby be able to resolve conflicts. (As opposed to arbitrary, ruler-imposed, or lack of such conventions.)

Barbara wrote:The vagueness of definitions of aggression is why the UN doesn't have an explicit non-aggression statute and deals with each case individually.

While the NAP can be thought of as an individual moral analogy to the Just War conception of aggression between States, it is not the same thing. Aggression between States involves a bunch of collectivist assumptions, and is a whole different ball of wax. Let's stick to the individual conduct definition of aggression in this thread.

Darrel aptly demonstrates my point: How the NAP is so much more operational than truly vague alternatives like "just be good." Good is totally vague and subjective, while "the initiation of force or threat of it" is often quite clear, and even when not has an objective observable grounding. Unbiased people will more easily agree on did that act initiate violence? than was that act good?.