Talk:Non-aggression principle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stating NAP is right-libertarian does not tell anyone what it is.

I rewrote the article to match the previous edit, which first describes what the NAP is in the opening paragraph. It is not informative for a layperson wanting to know what the NAP is to read a discussion that describes the NAP as something that is associated with right-libertarians (or any-libertarians). That type of discussion is for somewhere within the article.I Use Dial (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The non-aggression principle defines aggression in right-libertarian terms. Non-aggression literally means "non-violation of right-libertarian rules", and so mentioning right-libertarianism in the opening paragraph is not only accurate, it is dishonest to neglect to do so. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You present this as fact without adequate sourcing.I Use Dial (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the content of the article explains this clearly and provides sources. This is not a contentious point: Libertarians define aggression as violation of libertarian property rights. Please stop reverting these edits. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not address my very first concern, which is to inform a user what the NAP is. No quantity of sources can address this. The fact that you use weasel words in your article tells everything anyone needs to know. You don't care that someone comes to the page and learns what the NAP is. You want them to read that the NAP is associated with some group, and who cares what it is.I Use Dial (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article as it stands is very misleading, and my edits are an attempt to clear that up. The NAP is a right-libertarian specific concept (it isn't used by any other group) and defines aggression in right-libertarian terms (for instance, non-libertarians don't regard tax collecting as "aggression"). My edits make that clear. Can you let me know if you object to these two points (which seem to me to be fairly non-controversial) and if so, why?

The other problem my edits address is the inclusion of quotes that aren't related to the NAP, and merely refer to general notions of freedom. Do you object to these being removed? If so, why?

Generally, it would be more constructive if you would simply build on/modify my changes rather than reverting all of them. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is not misleading. I Use Dial (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article does not belong to you. Other editors are not here to kindly build on or modify as pleases you. I Use Dial (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't belong to you either. You're here to contribute constructively, not act as gatekeeper and simply reject all changes that you don't like. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article on the principle of non-aggression at the Mises Wiki of the Ludwig von Mises Institute does not mention the term "right-libertarian(ism)", and it features a list of historical precedents that is even longer than the list in this Wikipedia article that User:TheRealRocknRolla has been (wrongly, in my opinion) trying to delete.

For a considerably broader, but still libertarian, definition of the NAP see, for example:

Liberty and the non-aggression principle mean not imposing one doctrine of values or motivations on peoples and cultures with unique circumstances and opposing doctrines; imposition is not the same as communication; change can be voluntary and brought about through reasoned argumentation.

— Mendenhall, Allen (2014). "Introduction: the basis for liberty". Literature and liberty: essays in libertarian literary criticism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. p. 10. ISBN 9780739186336. OCLC 862589369. For Allen Mendenhall's libertarian credentials see, for example, his bio at the Mises Institute

Another problem with User:TheRealRocknRolla's edit that is being discussed here, in addition to the more serious problems already mentioned above, is that the edit wrongly removes important synonyms in boldface from the lead sentence that should remain because those terms redirect to this article: non-aggression axiom, non-coercion principle, zero aggression principle, and non-initiation of force. Biogeographist (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a right-libertarian organisation! That page itself notes that the NAP is defined in right-libertarian terms, such as prohibiting taxation ("When applied to the state, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation.."). The fact that the current article is mostly a direct copy-and-paste from this one source is problematic and constitutes both plagiarism and violation of NPOV. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You've mentioned two libertarian sources and no others, which seems like agreement from you that the NAP is right-libertarian specific. You've quoted two definitions of the NAP, both of which define aggression in right-libertarian terms, which seems like agreement from you that the NAP defines aggression in right-libertarian terms. Yes? TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That is solved by simply modifying my edits, not rejecting them wholesale. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheRealRocknRolla: I have moved your response, which was interspersed with my text, after my signature. You should not break up another editor's text on a talk page with your own text; you should place your response after the last entry in the discussion, per WP:TP, so that each block of text is signed and it is clear who wrote each block of text in temporal order. If you feel a need to quote another editor's text, you can use Template:Talkquote.

You were wrong to tag this article with Template:Copypaste (in this edit) and to claim that this Wikipedia article copied from the article at Mises Wiki. In fact, Mises Wiki copied from Wikipedia, as can clearly be seen by comparing the article histories of each article. The article on the Mises Wiki (which is just an older version of this Wikipedia article) presents multiple perspectives on the NAP; it does not make the mistake of simply calling the NAP "right-libertarian" and thereby eliding or conflating different perspectives.

If your edit were largely an improvement over the existing article, then other editors would accept your edit and correct any minor errors, rather than revert. But that is not the case here: Your edit was considerably worse than what it replaced. Perhaps you should explain in detail here on the talk page what your agenda is—i.e., describe in detail your overall purpose in attempting to edit this article—and somebody can help you craft a high-quality edit that will be acceptable to other editors, and that doesn't merely blank important content and doesn't replace substantive description with the vague label of "right-libertarian(ism)". Biogeographist (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is not clear in what I have just written, let me be clear about what my agenda would be if I were substantively editing this article. (I say "if I were" substantively editing this article because I have barely made any substantial contributions.) I would do a scholarly survey of the widest possible variety of literature that mentions the NAP (and any of its variations—see, for example, my quote of Allen Mendenhall above), and I would make sure that all possible perspectives and interpretations are included in this article. In other words, my agenda would be to increase the quantity of perspectives on the NAP represented in this article, in accord with an inclusively neutral point of view. Simply labeling the NAP as "right-libertarian" does not do justice to the nuanced panoply of well-sourced perspectives on the NAP that should be represented in this article per the Wikipedia core content policy of neutral point of view, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Emphasis added.) Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the comment ordering, fairly new to this! Sorry for the mistake with the copy-paste labelling too, I assumed that the content had come from a libertarian site. However, that does get to the heart of the main issue with this article: It has been written from a libertarian point of view, and not from an objective, external perspective.

Take this line for instance: ""Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property." This isn't correct: Right-libertarians consider taxation to be aggression. But in a society that isn't right-libertarian, your tax liability doesn't belong to you, so isn't "an individual's property" in the first place.

They consider the right to demand property rents legitimate, even though they require equal aggression to taxation in terms of coercing payment. Property enforcement itself requires "forceful interference with an individual" (eg handcuffing the individual and taking them to jail if they commit trespass law). And yet right-libertarians are strong supporters of property law.

To answer the question "is this aggression under the NAP?", you have to already know what right-libertarians believe in order to answer it. It's misleading to say anything else. This is the issue that I am addressing in my rewrites of the introduction. The current revision speaks to the reader as though they are already fully committed right-libertarians.

I'm happy to change my proposed intro to word it better: I see that repeated mention of "right-libertarian" seems like clunky phrasing. Perhaps "capitalist" would be better? TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheRealRocknRolla: Regarding the sentence in this article's lead: "'Aggression', for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property." This sentence is appropriately supported by a reliable source. You said above that this sentence "isn't correct", and as justification for your claim that the sentence isn't correct you point to some contradictions in some alleged "right-libertarian" arguments about taxation and rents. You may be correct to point out the contradictions in those arguments, but this article's lead does not actually make those arguments. How the NAP is derived and interpreted—i.e., how the principle is used within arguments to advocate for or against systems or policies—is explicated later in the article. So I don't agree with your conclusion that this article's lead currently "speaks to the reader as though they are already fully committed right-libertarians." Perhaps the lead could use a minor improvement, but defining the NAP as "a rhetorical concept espoused by right-libertarianism", as you did in your edit, is not an improvement.

In my view, for whatever it's worth, if there is a direction in which this article should be developing, that direction is not toward eliminating nuances and multiple perspectives by reducing the article's subject to a vague label such as "right-libertarianism" or "capitalism"—for a critique of the widespread problematic usage of the latter term see, for example: Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006) [1996]. The end of capitalism (as we knew it): a feminist critique of political economy (Reprint ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816648050. OCLC 61261295.

The article should instead be developing toward including a wider range of interpretations of the NAP. I'm reminded of an essay by McKenzie Wark:

If we let go of the oppositional thinking: state–bad/market–good (which of course opposes itself to imaginary opposite doctrines), then we can think about practices of forming heterogeneous institutional forms that have elements of these forms of organisation—and many others as well. None of which is terribly startling. A Humean libertarian philosophy would be practical, sceptical. It's not the only kind of libertarian thought one might want to see flourishing. Its not about opposing cyberlibertarian thought with a single alternative. There's yet another understanding of power, of desire, to be found, for example, in Spinoza. Liberty is a weed that grows in lots of places—perhaps everywhere.

— Wark, McKenzie (18 January 1997). "The liberty tree". Post to the Nettime mailing list. Retrieved 30 August 2017.

Ideally, this article would show (in an appropriately sourced, scholarly way, of course) how the NAP has been adopted and interpreted by different thinkers through space and time, like "a weed that grows in lots of places". Biogeographist (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This article conflates the non-aggression principle with the harm principle

The history section of this article conflates two different principles, the harm principle and the non-aggression principle. They are somewhat similar, but not the same. Some differences off the top of my head:

• The NAP is an ethical stance which lies at the foundation of 20th-century deontological libertarianism. John Stuart Mill's version of the harm principle is a consequentialist result of a utilitarian philosophy that places human utility at its foundation.
• Economic redistribution violates the NAP, but does not necessarily violate the harm principle—particularly if such redistribution increases overall human utility (e.g. a dollar provides more marginal utility to a poor person than to a rich person).
• In practice, the NAP prioritizes minimizing the powers of government, while the harm principle prioritizes maximizing the freedoms of citizens.
• The NAP places significant limits on foreign policy, but the harm principle does not.
• When pushed to their most extreme points, the NAP and the harm principle lead to different conclusions, primarily because the NAP is more restrictive than the harm principle.

--JHP (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

With all of your linked sources being Wikipedia articles and all of your claims being your own opinion statements, it is difficult to seriously consider anything you are claiming. Most notably, the NAP actually has nothing to do with government, and does not have anything specifically against government. The appearance of such is only due to the application of NAP not differentiating a government from any other entity, and that aspect of its application being the focus of many libertarians. I Use Dial (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to "Nanobliss"

I'm glad you're interested in making large contributions to this page. I think you've included some great stuff already. I do, however, believe that we should avoid including content without citations unless what we're saying it pretty broad/obvious. For example, I don't think we need citations for "some libertarians support the state" or "some libertarians support taxes because of the free-rider problem" or "Geolibertarians support taxation on land" etc. The more specific it is, the more uneasy I become, because I think it's more likely that it's OR. Please include more citations with your new content. Thanks! Byelf2007 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lil Jon?

I mean, yeah, "Don't start no shit won't be no shit" is fairly in line with the NAP; however I question whether it adds anything of value to the article. The main reason I find this somewhat objectionable is that the quotation is a drastic departure in tone from the rest of the article. This isn't some attack on rap or even cursing, just that it does not seem to fit in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.24 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Axiom vs. Principle

Because "principle" is the main article name and "axiom" is a redirect, and also because it seems that "principle" is slightly more common in libertarian discourse, I re-wrote things to use "principle" rather than "axiom" (Now Rothbard preferred "axiom" which is why that's used in the anarcho-capitalism article) I don't have a personal prefrence, so if someone prefers "axiom" feel free to edit, just be consistent and change all the instances (without changing qutations, that is :) and note the change here so future editors know what's the preferred formulation for this article. Saswann 12:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't care a pap for it. Only in the logical/ethical discussion it is important, since it is an axiom. --Alfrem 13:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

? Are you saying you don't care what term is used in the article? Or are you saying you prefer "axiom"? 66.94.94.154 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "axiom" in the situation as above. The name of the article doesn't make any difference to me. --Alfrem 14:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The libertarians I've encountered use the two terms interchangeably. But "principle" seems more popular, if for no other reason than it lends itself toward a niftier acronym. --Matt Apple 21:05, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

Non Aggression Principles Theory As Currently Applied Is An Oxymoron

By definition , illegitimate aggression is violence , where self defence against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression , which precludes that not all aggression is illegitimate . Whereby , a common understanding and consistent application of the term aggression directs that pacifism , or no aggression , even in response to illegitimate aggression , is a correct understanding of non aggression . Thus , a non aggression principles lexicon as currently applied is an oxymoron .

Clearly , non violence principles more succinctly defines the intent of non aggression theorists , who were obviously taking a figurative nap while developing the theory in the context applying correct diction .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence The term "nonviolence" is often linked with peace or it is used as a synonym for it, and despite the fact that it is frequently equated with passivity and pacifism, this equation is rejected by nonviolent advocates and activists.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/does-non-violence-principles-correct-non-aggression-principles-lexicon.754609/ ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeMiJa (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References