fayfreethinkers.com

This thread has been split from the "What Next For Scared Conservatives?" thread, specifically here. Please continue discussion on the nature of rights in this thread.

Thank you for your cooperation.
--Savonarola, Politics Moderator


To me, rights derive from the nature of man; to you, rights derive from the State. My question to you, Darrel, is: How can you ever challenge the State in anything without an outside "higher law" to stand on? (Or perhaps you never challenge the State on moral grounds?)

Hogeye wrote:To me, rights derive from the nature of man; to you, rights derive from the State.

DAR
No, but I do acknowledge a duly elected "states" ability to make laws regarding the regulation of motor vehicles, weaponry, etc.

My question to you, Darrel, is: How can you ever challenge the State in anything without an outside "higher law" to stand on?

DAR
What "higher law"?

(Or perhaps you never challenge the State on moral grounds?)

DAR
Incorrect. I think states do participate in wrong action at times. And there are, usually, due processes for correcting them. Some of them are cumbersome, archaic and even broken and that's too bad.

So what is your moral "higher law" that you think gives you the right to walk around town with a belt of grenades around your waist and a bazooka on your shoulder?

D.

NAP - the non-aggression principle - is a higher law than man-made decreed law. It is based on the nature of man, rather than on the whims of rulers or some men's wish to exploit others.

Darrel wrote:I think states do participate in wrong action at times.

Then clearly you have some criteria or principles you hold to be more important than edicts of State - i.e. a higher law. I'm glad; before this you came off as totally submitting your mind to decreed law, what with your quoting "scripture" of Constutution and all.

Darrel wrote:So what is your moral "higher law" that you think gives you the right to walk around town [armed]?

I believe that every human has a right of self-defense - that a person may take non-aggressive measures to protect his life, liberty, and property. (Lest you forget: "aggression' means the initiation of violence, not defensive or retaliatory use of violence.)

Finally you good folks are getting to the meat of the matter. No doubt the moderator will soon punt this to another thread.

The philosophical questions with which we now find ourselves engaged, involve the existence or justification of "rights". What are they? Who grants them? Etc. These, of course, are the grave problems confronting every Poltical philosopher. So some questions, some of which you guys are already playing around with....

What are rights? Do human rights or 'natural rights' exist at all? If so, how do we know them? Upon what ethical theory do they derive? What justifications are there?

Now, those are the big philosophical issues we are heading into. Philosophically, I am an anti-realist where ethics are concerned (A whole big long muddled mess we can later get into), but specifically, Hogeye, I have a couple of questions for you....

First, depending upon your moral justification for the existence of 'natural rights' etc. How and why do you equate property with political rights i.e. "life and liberty"? I begin with Proudhon's assertion that all property is theft. That Property rights are positive rights always subscribed, regulated, and protected by the state, which hitherto, has been in the service of-the wealthy. There is very little rational justification for property at all, especially initial acquisition of property. Locke made the best case for it and that effort was laughable. A noble attempt by a rich man, no doubt, and to be expected. Nozick, whom I am surprised to see absent from your webpage list of influences, put those shortcomings in proper perspective while arguing for his Libertarian 'limited state'. But even he acknowledged there was little justification for the initial acquisition of property. How do you round that square?

I also would like to see the moral justifications we all have for belieiving in 'natural rights'. No doubt it will clarify our positions on the issues that brought us here. I am very familiar with Doug and Darrel's adamant utilitarianism, but what else is on display here?

Well, Jefferson (a deist) said people are "endowed by their creator" of certain inalienable rights - and did not include property among them. As to real property, I'm with the Native Americans - how can you claim ownership of something you can't pick up and move? On the other hand, I can see the validity of some kind of socially recognized claim so I don't get chased out of my dwelling place by somebody or group of bodies physically stronger than I am. Using the Native American standard - property is something you can carry with you - I'm afraid I'm a little too "modern American". It would take an 8' U-Haul to hold my stuff (especially including appliances), not counting my car. I didn't make any of it, although I did generate the wealth with which I bought it all by many hours of work.

I guess that's what "rights" come down to - claims on time, energy, and property (personal and real) recognized as being beneficial to the society as a whole, enforced by that social construct, government.

Hogeye wrote:NAP - the non-aggression principle - is a higher law than man-made decreed law. It is based on the nature of man, rather than on the whims of rulers or some men's wish to exploit others.

DAR
NAP Higher law? I don't see how. What a vague notion. As history shows us it is often the Nature of Man to murder, rape, steal, exploit and enslave. It seems to me that civilization tries to inhibit these undesirable actions and allow the more life affirming natures of humankind to flourish through laws enacted by the will of the people. That's the goal anyway. NAP is nice but who gets to interprete what and who is aggressing? More high school grads from Bangalore?

Darrel wrote:So what is your moral "higher law" that you think gives you the right to walk around town [armed]?

HOGEYE
I believe that every human has a right of self-defense - that a person may take non-aggressive measures to protect his life, liberty, and property.

DAR
The laws of the land (and any land I know of) certainly allow the right of self-defense, even lethal action while pursuing self-defense. So this is beside the point. What matters is where the lines are drawn. What if some nuts thinks he needs a belt of grenades while walking around town and a howitzer on his front lawn? What if he feels he needs to stock pile explosives on his property? Where does Hogeye draw the line on this right of self-defense? Everyone makes it up as they go? Currently, in this land, one has a right of self-defense and almost without exception the right to have a gun, or several, in one's home. This is balanced with, according to the SC interpretation of the 2nd, the governments right to regulate arms, (grenades and howitzers too) and make laws restricting them in certain instances.

D.

Tony wrote:How and why do you equate property with political rights i.e. "life and liberty"?

Life and liberty is vaccuous if you cannot translate it into reality. Property is necessary to living life. You have no liberty if you are not allowed to effect things in the real world.

Tony wrote:I begin with Proudhon's assertion that all property is theft. That Property rights are positive rights always subscribed, regulated, and protected by the state, which hitherto, has been in the service of-the wealthy.

I would say that the definition you give of "property" is too restrictive. Even for Proudhon. What you are talking about is decreed property, the kind Proudhon talks about in "What is Property." But there is "natural" property, proceeding from objective interaction with things. Proudhon's "possession property" is of this type. And of course Proudhon had no problem with owning the results of labor. Incidentally, here are some profound Proudhon quotes about property:

"Property is Liberty" - Pierre Proudhon

"Property [is] a triumph of Liberty. For it is born of Liberty ... Property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State, because it shows no reverence for princes, rebels against society and is, in short, anarchist." - Pierre Proudhon

"Property is a decentralising force. Being itself an absolute, it is anti-despotic and anti-unitary. Property is the basis of any system of federation." - Pierre Proudhon

To live, man needs some form of property. Whether any particular society uses mutualism, soft propertarianism, hard propertarianism, with or without non-scarce things (IP) included, I would leave to the market and voluntary society to determine. My position is soft propertarian - I think private "sticky" property is permissable. Further, I think it is generally best. But I do not oppose geoism or mutualism in principle; there may be some things that should have restrictions on transferability, e.g. the water in aquifers and surface streams perhaps should be owned by the landowners in the watershed, i.e. "bundled" with the land. The bottom line is that property is whatever the neighbors deem to be property. In a stateless society, there would likely be many and diverse property systems coexisting.

My justification for natural rights is basically the same as Rothbard or Rand, with maybe a little Narveson thrown in. Rights are deduced from observation of man and the way he lives. They are necessary conditions for man to live his own life. They are the conditions that all men who want to live their own life and interact with other people would rationally agree to, given the universality principle. (So they don't apply for e.g. suicidal people or total hermits.)

Barbara, Jefferson probably thought that property was an obvious part of pursuit of happiness. He probably did not consider his rephrasing of Locke to be a significant change.

Jefferson wrote:"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right
of every citizen in his person and property and in their
management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means
with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to
what we acquire by those means without violating the similar
rights of other sensible beings." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre
Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

Native Americans who grew crops had property in land. The Yuroks of California even protected the property rights of Indians from other tribes. Even those who were still hunter-gatherers had property in tools, weapons, shelter, and in short anything scarce. In hunter-gatherer societies without land scarcity, there is of course no property in land. (Though even here, there were often tribally-owned hunting grounds.) The telos of property is to solve the scarcity problem.

Darrel wrote:As history shows us it is often the Nature of Man to murder, rape, steal, exploit and enslave.

And you think these things are beneficial to the life of man? Darrel, the kind of law in the moral context is different from laws of physics. It's more like the "law of large numbers" in statistics. It can be "broken", but on the macro level or with a larger sample it holds.

Darrel wrote:It seems to me that civilization tries to inhibit these undesirable actions and allow the more life affirming natures of humankind to flourish through laws enacted by the will of the people.

I don't believe in your Rousseauian mystical "will of the people." As noted, I think we can deduce what is good for man by looking at what kind of critter he is. Barbara is a little closer; she doesn't assume a magic will of the people, and she notes that consent is a major consideration. Her only mistake is assuming that only a monopoly ("government") can provide defense of rights. She doesn't see the possibility of pluralistic provision of such services - polycentric law or market-generated law.

Darrel wrote:The laws of the land (and any land I know of) certainly allow the right of self-defense...

Nope; it is illegal according to monopoly statist law for me to defend myself against drug nazis, tax-collectors, etc.

Darrel wrote:Where does Hogeye draw the line on this right of self-defense?

The NAP, of course. Any and all self-defense is permissible so long as it doesn't initiate force.* E.g. killing innocent third parties is not permissible. Of course, one may contractually give up some of your prerogative; some PDAs may require jury duty or testifying (subpoena) as a condition of membership. (*Somewhat overstated - proportionality comes into play when using retaliatory force.)

I don't believe in your Rousseauian mystical "will of the people."

DAR
There is nothing mystical about people having their "will" represented either by direct vote on an issue or duly elected representatives making decisions in their place.

As noted, I think we can deduce what is good for man by looking at what kind of critter he is.

DAR
Often not a good critter. This is why people band together and create laws to protect them from the behavior of the worst critters expressing the worst "natures of man."

Darrel wrote:
Where does Hogeye draw the line on this right of self-defense?

HOGEYE
The NAP, of course. Any and all self-defense is permissible so long as it doesn't initiate force.

DAR
This ducks the question entirely, and I even gave you specific examples. Grenades on the belt as you walk around town, howitzers on the front yard, and unlimited collections of explosives on your downtown property. All admissable as "self-defense" under your scheme?
Floating some vague NAP means nothing unless there is a provision given for who interpretes when it does and does not apply and what it means. Sounds like you'll need a supreme court.

D.

Darrel, a will pertains to an individual brain. Any time you claim some kind of collective "will", you are engaging in a kind of mysticism - you are claiming that there is some non-corporeal entity with a will magically emerging from the opinions of individuals. Kind of a secular god.

Hogeye> I think we can deduce what is good for man by looking at what kind of critter he is.

Darrel> Often not a good critter.

You seem to be missing the point here. The idea is not (as you seem to think) to observe man and take what people do as natural and good. The idea is to observe what works in making successful, healthy, happy, and productive humans and societies. E.g. I think you'd agree that random murdering of people is not conducive to the life of man. Nor is robbery. We can deduce this from observing man, and from noting the way he survives and lives - by conceptual thought and productive action. Murder and robbery short-circuits this thought-action process. If man lived like a sunflower, then this thought-action thing would be irrelevant. As it is, thought-action is man's basic tool for living.

Darrel wrote:This is why people band together and create laws to protect them from the behavior of the worst critters expressing the worst "natures of man."

I agree with what I see as your underlying thought here, but would phrase it differently. Yes, people band together to provide defense services. Whether good law is created or discovered is a major question. In history, the freer peoples tended to have discovered law rather than created law. Created law is generally imposed by rulers or masters. Most would say that murder and robbery are contrary to the nature of man, i.e. such acts are incompatable with "the life of man qua man." Note that this banding together to protect rights need not be monopolistic. In fact, history shows that monopoly police and arbitration services (governments) are generally incompetent, expensive, and detrimental to liberty.

Darrel> Where does Hogeye draw the line on this right of self-defense?

Hogeye> The NAP, of course. Any and all self-defense is permissible so long as it doesn't initiate force.

Darrel> This ducks the question entirely, and I even gave you specific examples. Grenades on the belt as you walk around town, howitzers on the front yard, and unlimited collections of explosives on your downtown property. All admissable as "self-defense" under your scheme?

Hmmm. I don't see how that's ducking the question. Let's take your examples. Does simply carrying grenades initiate force? No. Thus it is permissible. Does having howitzers in your front yard initiate force? No. Therefore, it should not be forcibly prevented, i.e. it is also permissible.

The only interesting question is the third about unlimited explosives. Since these may explode by accident, and are such that even intentional explosion almost certainly would harm non-combatants (they are not targeted weapons), there is a case to be made that they constitute a real threat to people living nearby. As you may recall, the NAP includes threat of force in "aggression." I would say that storing high explosives in a residential neighborhood may constitute an initiation of force. (Unless the neighbors were informed, and consented, and possibly given compensation for risk. The neighbors may e.g. require the explosives owner to carry sufficient insurance in case of accident.) Here's an analogy: Suppose I play Russian roulette with someone else's head. If I put one cartridge in a six-shooter and spin the cylinder, then point it at your head and pull the trigger, then I have initiated force even if the bullet didn't fire.

Darrel wrote:Floating some vague NAP means nothing unless there is a provision given for who interpretes when it does and does not apply and what it means. Sounds like you'll need a supreme court.

I don't understand why you consider it vague. On the contrary, I consider the main strength of the NAP to be how it operationalizes conduct so well, compared to other moral principles (such as e.g. the Law of Equal Freedom or Golden Rule.) It is pretty easy for people to agree on whether force occured and who struck the first blow. Of course, there are borderline cases, and there are questions about due compensation after unjust conduct occurs. So it helps to have an arbitration/court system.

Darrel, you take two true propositions (An arbitration system is beneficial. There must be some end to the arbitration process.) and then jump to an erroneous claim: "You'll need a supreme court." There are ways to ensure finality in a court process without having one single highest court. You can have several (or many) maximal courts without having a maximum court. E.g. In a world with three courts A, B, and C, the appeal from any two could be the third. In the standard anarcho-capitalist model, a kind of two-out-of-three rule would probably evolve: Suppose I have a complaint against you, that e.g. I think you stole my computer. If my PDA A disagrees, then the process ends. If my PDA A agrees that you stole my computer, and your PDA B agrees, then the process ends. Your PDA would probably get my computer back or give me compensation. If your PDA B disagrees, then we go to an "appeals court" PDA C, which A and B have previously agreed to use in such cases. The ruling of C is final. A system like this would have many maximal courts, but no supreme court. (Your kneejerk assumption that only a monopoly govt court can do it is a good example of the fallacy of government solipotence.)

Hogeye wrote:Darrel, a will pertains to an individual brain. Any time you claim some kind of collective "will", you are engaging in a kind of mysticism - you are claiming that there is some non-corporeal entity with a will magically emerging from the opinions of individuals. Kind of a secular god.

DAR
What utter nonsense. People go to the voting booth all the time and express their "will" on specific up/down non mystical issues all the time.

If the issue of whether the populace should have unlimited, unrestricted, grenades at hand, howitzer on the front yard "self-defense" then the people, even most of the crazy NRA types, would express their specific will and vote no. They would vote for some regulation of arms. They have done so through a rather more elaborate contitutional method but it arrives at something near to how the will of the people would be expressed if taken to direct, measureable, scientific, vote. No magic.

D.

Darrel wrote:People go to the voting booth all the time and express their "will" on specific up/down non mystical issues all the time.

Right. Individual people express their individual wills. It would be the fallacy of composition to conclude that there is a collective will.

It may well be that in a winner-take-all voting system the majority would vote for victim disarmament. They would also likely vote to make Xtianity the official State religion. That of course has nothing to do with rights, other than showing that majoritarianism can be (and usually is) antagonistic to rights. Rights cannot be adequately protected with a monopoly legal regime. They would be better protected by pluralistic polycentric law. This would allow anti-gun people to contract with PDAs and come together in gun-free neighborhoods without abrogating the right of others to patronize PDAs that protect gun possession and live in gun-friendly neighborhoods. It's called freedom.

Hogeye wrote:

Darrel wrote:People go to the voting booth all the time and express their "will" on specific up/down non mystical issues all the time.

Right. Individual people express their individual wills.

DAR
And a majority of individuals can express a majority will. That is all I was saying. Some black/white collectivist decisions have to be made. Which side of the road to drive on. Yes to howitzers on the front yard but no to storing explosives? This is your decision? I would rather appeal to the vast a majority that would reject this.

It may well be that in a winner-take-all voting system the majority would vote for victim disarmament. They would also likely vote to make Xtianity the official State religion.

DAR
They didn't last time it came up. That is, they chose representatives who expressly chose not to make Christianity the state religion. Good decision I think.

This would allow anti-gun people to contract with PDAs and come together in gun-free neighborhoods without abrogating the right of others to patronize PDAs that protect gun possession and live in gun-friendly neighborhoods. It's called freedom.

DAR
It's called anarchy, also known as Somalia, also known as hell on earth. Quick example. Howitzers shoot shells that go over twenty miles. Following your policy of freedom and right of self defense I put several on my front yard. Then I sell, under the table, to a suicide minded muslim fellow. I go far away. He blasts the daylights out of Springdale and Rogers until he is stopped.

Your extreme theories don't work in the real world. As others have pointed out, they might work, maybe, in a little Mayberry type world (very small community) but not in our modern world. This is why no one uses your ideas, in the real world. If they do dabble with them a bit, they get disasterous results.

D.

Darrel wrote:And a majority of individuals can express a majority will. That is all I was saying.

Okay, so your poetic anthropomorphism is actually nothing but saying "my gang is bigger." It's not a "will", but simply a decision-making tool. I'll buy that.

Now we've pitted individual rights against majoritarianism. Essentially, this is a moral principle saying what people should not be forcibly prevented from doing versus a decision rule saying that the biggest gang should get their way (regardless of individual rights). Right and wrong are dependent on which group of people vote in this case. I would call it an amoral position, since it gives no guidance in conduct, but only asks if n/2 + 1 of some population would agree, and may change from day to day.

Darrel wrote:Some black/white collectivist decisions have to be made. Which side of the road to drive on.

Some decisions have to be made, but those decisions don't necessarily have to be winner-take-all, and can be made on a small or local scale. For example, the market is a decision-making process where all parties to the transaction benefit ex ante. It amounts to a unanimous decision process, rather than winner-take-all. Other decision-making tools use the concept of jurisdiction. On the road I own, I can choose which side to drive on, and require my guests/customers to adbide by my decision. Then there's individual rationality: such "chicken games" are solved all the time even by lower animals - Dawkins' ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy) and all that.

Darrel wrote:They didn't [vote to make Xtianisty the State religion] last time it came up. That is, they chose representatives who expressly chose not to make Christianity the state religion.

LOL! They chose representatives to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead those representatives made a back-room deal for creating a central State, thereby setting up a new Merchant State just like the people had successfully rebelled against. Those representatives betrayed the people and the revolution - not much of an endorsement for voting. And we know how the people of Arkansas would vote on Xtianity or creationism today! Don't you really think that such issues should be a matter of rational thinking and principle rather than the whim of the largest gang?

Your example of Howizers is instructive. You can either disown your mind, and say whatever the biggest gang says is right (not a very freethinking approach), or you can apply the NAP principle to conclude that owning and selling things is permissible, but "blasting the daylights out of Springdale and Rogers" is not.

My "extreme theory" of individual rights and non-aggression has worked out well in many societies. I would say that brute force majority rule has generally failed. You are trying to make a moral principle out of a mere decision-making technique. It's not surprising that it gets you Hitlers, Clintons and Bushes, and final solutions, manufactured crises, and mass murder.

Hogeye wrote:

Darrel wrote: My "extreme theory" of individual rights and non-aggression has worked out well in many societies.

DAR
I don't wonder why you didn't give any examples. Would you like some examples of where the will of the people as determined by a vote of the majority is working well in many societies?

I would say that brute force majority rule has generally failed. You are trying to make a moral principle out of a mere decision-making technique.

DAR
No, your moral principle is uselessly vague and means nothing until defined and juried to fit each situation. That's your supreme court no matter how you want assemble it. And some will like it and some won't and the biggest gang decides. And that's okay, people will generally look out for their collective self interest, even it is slow and cumbersome.
Your allowance of howitzers and grenades but not stored explosives is arbitrary and shows that you really don't believe in freedom. You would have jack boot government thugs come and take my bombs away?! Yet I can keep the howitzers on the front yard for self-defense? Ridiculous. Communist! Statist!

It's not surprising that it gets you Hitlers, Clintons and Bushes, and final solutions, manufactured crises, and mass murder.

DAR
Oh, if we could only have anarchy and the blessings it has bestowed on places like... Somalia.

D.

The framers of the Constitution did their best to come up with a successful "tweak" of the Articles of Confederation and in the end gave up. Governance by a Congress with lots of responsibility but no overall authority did not work and could not be made to work. An executive branch to carry out the law and a judiciary to review the law are as necessary to the maintenance of a free society as a well-regulated militia. The whole thing is a balancing act - representatives based on population (power to the most populated, merchantile/industrial states) plus senators based on statehood (power to the least populated, agrarian states), electoral college based on the combination of the two (admittedly should be proportional rather than "winner take all", but that determination was a right "reserved to the states"). The 1st 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) required as a condition of ratification - that's what protects minority rights and removes us from a totally "my gang is bigger than your gang" system - some states refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights was passed. And that's the true response to the accusation of "representatives made a back-room deal for creating a central State..." - the constitution had to be ratified by the states (i.e., the voters in the states) to take effect and become the "law of the land", as has every amendment to the constitution to this day.

Hogeye> My "extreme theory" of individual rights and non-aggression has worked out well in many societies.

Darrel> I don't wonder why you didn't give any examples.

I given examples of libertarian societies many times. My favorite examples are Classical Iceland, the American West, and Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania. Here is a list of some such societies from Wikipedia.

It occurs to me that you are using the same argument that apologists for the ancien regime used in the 1700s against liberal democracy - it hasn't happened, so it can't work. Luckily, it eventually happened in North America and France.

All I really need to show is a tendency, i.e. that relatively freer societies do better than relatively authoritarian ones. I don't feel compelled to show any "pure" stateless society; only that the closer a society is to that ideal, the better.

Darrel wrote:Your moral principle is uselessly vague and means nothing ...

I don't understand you here. You've repeatedly claimed the NAP is vague. What don't you understand about "aggression"? Are its manifestations not observable? Do not juries make relatively objective judgements about assault, rape, and murder? Help me understand why you think "initiation of violence" is so vague, especially compared to most other ethical notions. If I understand why you think it's vague, I may be able to convince you otherwise. It's unclear to me whether you are taking a moral skeptic position (that all morality is vague), or whether you see problems in interpreting what conduct initiates force.

Darrel wrote:... until defined and juried to fit each situation. That's your supreme court no matter how you want assemble it.

You have the fixed idea that it takes a supreme ruler to make a decision. All you need really is a final court, not a supreme court. Please reread what I wrote above about the difference between "maximal" and "maximum."

Darrel wrote:Your allowance of howitzers and grenades but not stored explosives is arbitrary and shows that you really don't believe in freedom. You would have jack boot government thugs come and take my bombs away?!

Arbitrary? I guess you missed the explanation based on threat of force and risk. Please reread. And you still seem not to understand the basics of anarchism. I would not have monopoly government police take your dangerous explosives away; I would have my PDA do it, or do it myself, or do it with my neighbors. What's with your hangup on monopolies? You want a monopoly court, monopoly police, and the lowest common denominator of the masses to rule you. That may be your preference, but please recognize that's not what anarchists want.

(Barbara, I'm making a new thread for our historical discussion called US Constitution and Bill of Rights.)

Your PDA v. my PDA is still just the biggest army/thugs/whatever wins. I'd rather have an over all government under whose laws small groups can interact in relative freedom and safety. For a NAP to work, all the participants have to be honest. All it takes is one thug to decide he wants your stuff or your body or just doesn't like you, and the NAP goes out the door - with no recourse but gang warfare if there is no governmental law to turn to.

Hogeye wrote: You've repeatedly claimed the NAP is vague. What don't you understand about "aggression"?

DAR
Half the time it's 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. You think my having a howitzer on the front yard (can I aim it at my neighbors house?) is not aggression. Most people would. You think that grenades hanging from the waist while walking around town is not agression. Most people would perceive that as a threat of agression. But you do see how storing bombs on your own property could be a potential aggression.

Are its manifestations not observable? Do not juries make relatively objective judgements about assault, rape, and murder?

DAR
Physical assault usually leaves physical evidence, rape as well, and murder leaves a body.

It's unclear to me whether you are taking a moral skeptic position (that all morality is vague), or whether you see problems in interpreting what conduct initiates force.

DAR
Yes, I think a lot of morality is vague. Initiated force can be obvious, but it's the many times that it is not obvious that make the NAP so vague unless aggression is explicitly defined for each situation. It's sounds nice, but when you unpack it and see how it applies to questionable situations, this is when it really comes down to the judges, supreme or final.

D.

The vagueness of definitions of aggression is why the UN doesn't have an explicit non-aggression statute and deals with each case individually. They did try, in the early years, but the argument over exactly what constituted aggression defeated them. (And the fact that murder leaves one or more bodies is precisely why in America we have laws of habeas corpus - you have to have the body to prove a crime was committed, before you can arrest anyone for it.)

Barbara Fitzpatrick 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. They did try, in the early years, but the argument over exactly what constituted aggression defeated them.

DAR
Fascinating.

I think we should all be for the JBG principle. I think most people will want to sign on to it because it represents such a fine morality.

Just Be Good.

D.