đź“š Yunotes

2. The Non-Aggression Principle

5 min read

Index

Definition

  • The NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) is the core axiom of true law.
  • The NAP asserts that the aggressor within a conflict ought not be the director.
  • Aggression is the initiation of conflict.

The Argument from Argument

  • Praxeological Axioms are self evident propositions.
  • If a propositions validity must be accepted in order to try and dispute it, then the proposition is self evident.
  • As shown previously, the law of non-contradiction is a self evident proposition.
  • The truth of the NAP is implied by the nature of argumentation.
  • Argumentation does not exist in a normative void.
  • If argumentation did not have any normative structure, it would lose any meaning, as all actions would be considered “argumentation”.
  • Argumentation is the only possible way to raise and determine the validity of any truth claim.
  • It then follows that the normative structure of argumentation has the unique status of being the practical pre-condition for ascertaining the truth or validity of any statement.
  • This is self evident, and therefore cannot be disputed as to do so would require you argue, pre-supposing its truth.
  • To dispute any norm of argumentation would result in contradiction (known as a dialectic or performative contradiction).
  • Disputing a norm of argumentation is a contradiction between a proposition and the act of proposing it.
  • Argumentation is a conflict-free interaction. It is a peaceful method of dispute resolution.
  • Aggression does not involve argumentative justification. It does not involve truth-seeking.
  • Argumentative justification necessarily does not involve aggression.
  • It then follows that the normative structure of argumentation implies non-aggression.
  • As argumentation is a pre-requisite for truth seeking, the NAP is true.
  • Aggression is the enemy of reason.
  • Someone engaging in unreason (truth-avoidance) cannot coherently make a truth claim.
  • No negation of a proposition can arise form unreason.
  • In order to argue, reason must be accepted, and accepting reason requires accepting the NAP.
  • The purpose of argumentation is seeking truth.
  • Aggressive activities are excluded from argumentation as they do not establish truth.
  • All true propositions are argumentatively justifiable.
  • Justifiability is irrelevant within a conflict.
  • A conflict cannot be justified argumentatively, as if it could be justified it would not be a conflict.
  • Causing conflicts therefore goes against the ethics of argumentation.

The Contradiction of Rights-Scepticism

  • The existence of a right implies implies that an individual can perform some action or own something without prevention.
  • To say someone has a right to something implies that the use of force to enforce that right is legitimate.
  • To have a right means to be able to legitimately enforce it.
  • A rights-sceptic must challenge the legitimacy of a rights enforcability.
  • If a sceptic doesn’t challenge the legitimacy of the enforcability of a right, they are not denying their right, because to have a right means you are able to legitimately enforce it.
  • In order to continue denying the right, the sceptic must challenge the legitimacy of its enforcability.
  • The only way a sceptic can challenge the legitimacy of the enforcability of a right is by maintaining that the enforcement of the right is unjustified.
  • This means that the sceptic must hold that enforcement requires justification.
  • The sceptic cannot just express distaste at the enforcement, they must challenge its legitimacy.
  • In order to challenge the legitimacy of the enforcement, it must be held that the party being enforced against has a right not to have that force used against them; that they can legitimately use force to stop the illegitimate enforcement.
  • This proves that rights-scepticism leads to contradiction.

Indirect and Joint Aggression

  • It is still aggression to order someone else to commit aggression on your behalf.
  • This is because crime is an action.
  • Crime is specifically an action in which a means is used to invade the borders of other peoples property.
  • People can be used as a means.
  • Instances where the outcome of an activity were unforeseeable are not examples of action.
  • For something to be action the end must be deliberate and sought after.
  • In crimes which require multiple conspirators, all of the conspirators are to be held equally liable.

It is illegal to use physical objects, including one’s fist, in a way that will cause the unwanted physical contact with another person.

Communication and Social Norms

  • Using others as means to commit aggression need not require direct commands. Things communicated in an indirect way can still constitute aggression.
  • This shows that social norms and the understanding of a language can influence whether some set of words demonstrate an act of aggression.
  • It is impossible to say with certainty whether a given action is aggression without being provided all of the relevant information.
  • Judges are necessary in any rational legal system for such reasons, as they have the capability to analyse the relevant details to determine where fault lies.
  • The job of a jurist is to explicate the objective principles. They might only be possible to apply to simple hypothetical scenarios where enough relevant details can be provided.

Graph View

Backlinks