POLITICS PART 3: THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
Strangely enough, this doesn't violate the NAP, as long as they both dropped their gloves at the same time!
In the last post, we saw that rights are moral principles sanctioning an individual's action in a social context. If it is a "right" for people to engage in certain actions then it is a "wrong" for them to engage in others. How, exactly, can a right be infringed?
In Ethics Part 11, we saw that initiating physical force was a unique kind of vice, as it paralyzes the victim's mind. Under the threat of force, it is impossible for one to proceed as a rational being, and thus the only choice is to resort to the "law of the jungle". Fight or flight, as the case may be. Remember, society can be an immense benefit to us, but only if it's civilized and follows a rational morality. That morality dictates that individuals have the right to certain actions. The only way to infringe on those rights is to initiate physical force against another. Physical force (including indirect force like fraud), is the only means we can paralyze the mind (the humanity) of another. Therefore, it's the only way we can infringe on someone else's rights. Lying, cheating, misleading, insulting, these might all be immoral in their own right, and cause much emotional harm. However, unless they are directed physically at someone's body or property they don't violate rights. One cannot be truly enslaved or oppressed without the physical element.
In Ethics Part 11, we saw that initiating physical force was a unique kind of vice, as it paralyzes the victim's mind. Under the threat of force, it is impossible for one to proceed as a rational being, and thus the only choice is to resort to the "law of the jungle". Fight or flight, as the case may be. Remember, society can be an immense benefit to us, but only if it's civilized and follows a rational morality. That morality dictates that individuals have the right to certain actions. The only way to infringe on those rights is to initiate physical force against another. Physical force (including indirect force like fraud), is the only means we can paralyze the mind (the humanity) of another. Therefore, it's the only way we can infringe on someone else's rights. Lying, cheating, misleading, insulting, these might all be immoral in their own right, and cause much emotional harm. However, unless they are directed physically at someone's body or property they don't violate rights. One cannot be truly enslaved or oppressed without the physical element.
THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
The Non-aggression principle (NAP) restates this truth, and is the bedrock foundation for libertarian-style politics. The principle states:
Aggression on someone's person or property is always immoral and illegitimate.
Note: "aggression" here is defined as either initiating physical force, or the credible threat of physical force.
The NAP is really just another way of saying "it's always immoral to infringe upon someone's rights".
The Non-aggression principle (NAP) restates this truth, and is the bedrock foundation for libertarian-style politics. The principle states:
Aggression on someone's person or property is always immoral and illegitimate.
Note: "aggression" here is defined as either initiating physical force, or the credible threat of physical force.
The NAP is really just another way of saying "it's always immoral to infringe upon someone's rights".
RETALIATORY FORCE
The NAP doesn't forbid all use of force, only the initiation of it. If someone has aggressed upon another, it's both justified and moral to use retaliatory force. Fighting off an assailant, defending one's home from an intruder, and enforcing a court order for a contract violation are all justified. A rational, civilized society doesn't attempt to get rid of all weapons, it just sets the terms for their use. No one (including the government) may use force, except in retaliation.
With this principle in mind, let's get back to the arena of rights. If you ever get confused, or have trouble determining if something is a right, use this rule of thumb: would it be immoral to use force against someone for engaging in that action? If the answer is yes, then it's a right. If it would be moral to use force, then the perpetrator is the aggressor, and retaliatory force is justified. Let's look at some common examples.
The NAP doesn't forbid all use of force, only the initiation of it. If someone has aggressed upon another, it's both justified and moral to use retaliatory force. Fighting off an assailant, defending one's home from an intruder, and enforcing a court order for a contract violation are all justified. A rational, civilized society doesn't attempt to get rid of all weapons, it just sets the terms for their use. No one (including the government) may use force, except in retaliation.
With this principle in mind, let's get back to the arena of rights. If you ever get confused, or have trouble determining if something is a right, use this rule of thumb: would it be immoral to use force against someone for engaging in that action? If the answer is yes, then it's a right. If it would be moral to use force, then the perpetrator is the aggressor, and retaliatory force is justified. Let's look at some common examples.
SPEECH
Freedom of speech (and its corollaries like protest, art and the press) is a true right. In a free society there can be no limits on restricting speech, no matter how obscene, provided the speaker isn't aggressing on someone else or their property. Remember, aggressing here must involve the credible threat of actual physical force or fraud. If someone publishes a pamphlet on the virtues of white supremacy, they are not aggressing on anyone, even though it might be an immoral stance. Offending others is not the same as aggressing on them. In this case, it would be immoral to use force to stop the racist author from publishing his pamphlet. The right to speech is the right to offend! In order to discover truth, we must be free to present ideas, both good and bad, and be able to argue. The reality is that all discoveries and truths will offend someone. The bolder the discovery, the bolder the offense. A free society values this, and settles disputes by reason, arguing, protesting, boycotting, or even ignoring. They don't react to being offended with guns, incarceration or other physical intimidation. However, if someone uses speech to credibly threaten another, that is no longer a "right". There is no such thing as the right to walk down the street telling people you're going to kill them. If the threat is credible, they are the aggressor, and force is justified in dealing with them.
The famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario is often used to confuse us about our right to speech. In reality, there is no contradiction between our right to speech and the theater scenario. Even if it was an almost empty theater, yelling fire unnecessarily is a violation of the theater owner's property rights. The owner sets the terms for his customers to come and enjoy the show, which most likely doesn't include bothering or endangering the other theatergoers. As the owner, he or she would have the right to remove the "speaker" from the property, by force if necessary. What's often lost in looking at our right to speech is forgetting property rights. When you are on someone else's property, they get to set the terms of its use by right. While you can spout of racist epithets or yell "fire" in your own house all day long, that right disappears when on someone's property, if they don't approve. There is no right to hold a protest on your neighbor's lawn, or to demand someone's radio studio. The property owner could object to speech even if it's not immoral or obscene. Maybe they just don't like the tone of someone's voice, or haircut, it doesn't really matter. Since the owner can morally set the terms of use for their property, they can ask a guest to leave at any time. If they fail to comply with that request, they are now the aggressor, and retaliatory force can be used if necessary.
Freedom of speech (and its corollaries like protest, art and the press) is a true right. In a free society there can be no limits on restricting speech, no matter how obscene, provided the speaker isn't aggressing on someone else or their property. Remember, aggressing here must involve the credible threat of actual physical force or fraud. If someone publishes a pamphlet on the virtues of white supremacy, they are not aggressing on anyone, even though it might be an immoral stance. Offending others is not the same as aggressing on them. In this case, it would be immoral to use force to stop the racist author from publishing his pamphlet. The right to speech is the right to offend! In order to discover truth, we must be free to present ideas, both good and bad, and be able to argue. The reality is that all discoveries and truths will offend someone. The bolder the discovery, the bolder the offense. A free society values this, and settles disputes by reason, arguing, protesting, boycotting, or even ignoring. They don't react to being offended with guns, incarceration or other physical intimidation. However, if someone uses speech to credibly threaten another, that is no longer a "right". There is no such thing as the right to walk down the street telling people you're going to kill them. If the threat is credible, they are the aggressor, and force is justified in dealing with them.
The famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario is often used to confuse us about our right to speech. In reality, there is no contradiction between our right to speech and the theater scenario. Even if it was an almost empty theater, yelling fire unnecessarily is a violation of the theater owner's property rights. The owner sets the terms for his customers to come and enjoy the show, which most likely doesn't include bothering or endangering the other theatergoers. As the owner, he or she would have the right to remove the "speaker" from the property, by force if necessary. What's often lost in looking at our right to speech is forgetting property rights. When you are on someone else's property, they get to set the terms of its use by right. While you can spout of racist epithets or yell "fire" in your own house all day long, that right disappears when on someone's property, if they don't approve. There is no right to hold a protest on your neighbor's lawn, or to demand someone's radio studio. The property owner could object to speech even if it's not immoral or obscene. Maybe they just don't like the tone of someone's voice, or haircut, it doesn't really matter. Since the owner can morally set the terms of use for their property, they can ask a guest to leave at any time. If they fail to comply with that request, they are now the aggressor, and retaliatory force can be used if necessary.
RELIGION
Freedom of religion is certainly a real right, although it's not truly necessary to distinguish religion from other beliefs and activities one might practice. Whether one worships Christ or pays homage to Stephen Hawking isn't really the issue. Using the rule of thumb above, religion is a right if it would be immoral to use force to prevent someone from practicing their religion. It would be immoral to prevent someone from worshiping any God, but at the same time, a person couldn't morally proclaim their religion required outlawing women from driving, or required involuntary human sacrifice. If it infringes on someone else's rights, it's not freedom of religion.
This particularly applies to property rights. If one's religion preaches alcohol is evil, they can't morally prevent others from drinking it, or get a job at a taxi company and refuse to take customers to a bar (the attempts under our current laws not withstanding). The owner of the cab company can set the rules for his property, and has the moral right to fire his workers if they don't do the desired job. If a church doesn't agree with gay marriage, they do have the moral right to deny weddings on their property, but no right outside of that. Similarly, a devout Christian bakery owner has the right to deny service to a gay couple if they wish (again, the current anti-discrimination laws not withstanding). However, this right comes from their property rights, not from "freedom of religion", something that is lost on the current political climate. If someone refuses service on their property, any attempt to force them to provide it constitutes aggression and is wrong. For historical reasons, it was necessary to explicitly identify the freedom of religion, but really this freedom is no different from any other of our peaceful actions.
Freedom of religion is certainly a real right, although it's not truly necessary to distinguish religion from other beliefs and activities one might practice. Whether one worships Christ or pays homage to Stephen Hawking isn't really the issue. Using the rule of thumb above, religion is a right if it would be immoral to use force to prevent someone from practicing their religion. It would be immoral to prevent someone from worshiping any God, but at the same time, a person couldn't morally proclaim their religion required outlawing women from driving, or required involuntary human sacrifice. If it infringes on someone else's rights, it's not freedom of religion.
This particularly applies to property rights. If one's religion preaches alcohol is evil, they can't morally prevent others from drinking it, or get a job at a taxi company and refuse to take customers to a bar (the attempts under our current laws not withstanding). The owner of the cab company can set the rules for his property, and has the moral right to fire his workers if they don't do the desired job. If a church doesn't agree with gay marriage, they do have the moral right to deny weddings on their property, but no right outside of that. Similarly, a devout Christian bakery owner has the right to deny service to a gay couple if they wish (again, the current anti-discrimination laws not withstanding). However, this right comes from their property rights, not from "freedom of religion", something that is lost on the current political climate. If someone refuses service on their property, any attempt to force them to provide it constitutes aggression and is wrong. For historical reasons, it was necessary to explicitly identify the freedom of religion, but really this freedom is no different from any other of our peaceful actions.
A futuristic right!
WEAPONS
There is much confusion about this right. We're all aware of the 2nd Amendment and its protection of firearms, but there is a deeper, philosophical justification for weapons. Since we have the right to our own life, we have the right to defend and preserve that life. Factually, there are criminals among men who may threaten our life and property, and even a police force may not properly protect us in all cases. Not only might it be rational to protect against this threat, it may even be moral. The right to life implicitly allows us the right to own a defensive weapon. This means a weapon that is suited for defending one's life and property. Philosophy doesn't explicitly tell us we have the right to a particular firearm, that is the job of the field of law to apply philosophical principles. In a futuristic Star Wars society, a defensive weapon might even be a light saber, or phaser.
There is legitimate debate about what types of weapons this right entails, and it's ultimately up to the field of law to set the exact standards. A knife, rifle or handgun are all valuable and suited as defensive weapons, and should be protected rights. A nuclear warhead or cruise missile is not reasonably suited to defend one's life or property and shouldn't be considered an individual right (although it could be argued it's necessary to defend a city or nation). If your neighbor had a tank in his yard pointed at your house, you could make a reasonable case that they were threatening you, and could request they cease violating your property rights. This, along with noise and pollution, are areas where there is legitimate debate on the degree allowed in a civilized society, and should be left to the field of law to determine. However, the law must be based on philosophy, and there should be no debate philosophically that one has a right to a defensive weapon to protect their life and property.
There is much confusion about this right. We're all aware of the 2nd Amendment and its protection of firearms, but there is a deeper, philosophical justification for weapons. Since we have the right to our own life, we have the right to defend and preserve that life. Factually, there are criminals among men who may threaten our life and property, and even a police force may not properly protect us in all cases. Not only might it be rational to protect against this threat, it may even be moral. The right to life implicitly allows us the right to own a defensive weapon. This means a weapon that is suited for defending one's life and property. Philosophy doesn't explicitly tell us we have the right to a particular firearm, that is the job of the field of law to apply philosophical principles. In a futuristic Star Wars society, a defensive weapon might even be a light saber, or phaser.
There is legitimate debate about what types of weapons this right entails, and it's ultimately up to the field of law to set the exact standards. A knife, rifle or handgun are all valuable and suited as defensive weapons, and should be protected rights. A nuclear warhead or cruise missile is not reasonably suited to defend one's life or property and shouldn't be considered an individual right (although it could be argued it's necessary to defend a city or nation). If your neighbor had a tank in his yard pointed at your house, you could make a reasonable case that they were threatening you, and could request they cease violating your property rights. This, along with noise and pollution, are areas where there is legitimate debate on the degree allowed in a civilized society, and should be left to the field of law to determine. However, the law must be based on philosophy, and there should be no debate philosophically that one has a right to a defensive weapon to protect their life and property.
Moral right to own
|
Not so much!
|
Well, at least he's not demanding them.
MATERIAL GOODS
Everyone has a right to build and own material goods that don't infringe on others' rights, but no one has the right to any good or service, no matter how crucial it might be to their life. Food, water, shelter, jobs, healthcare, contraception, etc. These are all valuable, possibly essential values in our life, but they are not rights. They are needs. Philosophically, there's a huge difference. You have the moral right to create, buy, trade, ask or beg for material goods, but not to demand them. To assert a material good or service is one's right ends up negating the concept of rights entirely. All material goods require effort to obtain or create. Asserting a right to a good means claiming someone else must provide it to you. This negates their property rights and amounts to a form of enslavement.
Thus, any claims of rights to material goods, like housing or healthcare, is an attempt to justify the initiation of force and violation of the non-aggression principle. It's the "right to infringe on rights", which is a complete contradiction. The extreme example of this is communism, where private property doesn't exist and everyone's labor is "owned" by the state, but there are varying degrees of this in every society today. Since all rights are interconnected, the more a society champions these "false rights" the more likely they are to infringe on true rights.
Everyone has a right to build and own material goods that don't infringe on others' rights, but no one has the right to any good or service, no matter how crucial it might be to their life. Food, water, shelter, jobs, healthcare, contraception, etc. These are all valuable, possibly essential values in our life, but they are not rights. They are needs. Philosophically, there's a huge difference. You have the moral right to create, buy, trade, ask or beg for material goods, but not to demand them. To assert a material good or service is one's right ends up negating the concept of rights entirely. All material goods require effort to obtain or create. Asserting a right to a good means claiming someone else must provide it to you. This negates their property rights and amounts to a form of enslavement.
Thus, any claims of rights to material goods, like housing or healthcare, is an attempt to justify the initiation of force and violation of the non-aggression principle. It's the "right to infringe on rights", which is a complete contradiction. The extreme example of this is communism, where private property doesn't exist and everyone's labor is "owned" by the state, but there are varying degrees of this in every society today. Since all rights are interconnected, the more a society champions these "false rights" the more likely they are to infringe on true rights.
COLLECTIVE "RIGHTS"
Can there be special rights reserved for certain groups? Women's rights, gay rights, workers, homeowners, renters, etc.? As with the "right" to material goods, any assertion of a special right for a group is a fallacy. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. Any rights a group claims must be derived from its individual members. One can neither gain new rights by joining a group, nor lose them. Workers may voluntarily group together and form a union to secure contracts, but they can claim no new rights or powers that they as individuals would morally have. Similarly, the government can claim no rights or privileges that individuals don't have. There are only individual rights, as rights pertain to sanctioning individual actions in a social context. Thus, "individual rights" is a redundant term, albeit a necessary one in today's culture.
It should now become clear that the goal of a civilized society should be to protect individual rights from being infringed upon. The NAP is an essential foundation for a moral society. As such, it needs to be defended strongly and consistently. The next post will deal with common criticisms of the NAP.
Can there be special rights reserved for certain groups? Women's rights, gay rights, workers, homeowners, renters, etc.? As with the "right" to material goods, any assertion of a special right for a group is a fallacy. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. Any rights a group claims must be derived from its individual members. One can neither gain new rights by joining a group, nor lose them. Workers may voluntarily group together and form a union to secure contracts, but they can claim no new rights or powers that they as individuals would morally have. Similarly, the government can claim no rights or privileges that individuals don't have. There are only individual rights, as rights pertain to sanctioning individual actions in a social context. Thus, "individual rights" is a redundant term, albeit a necessary one in today's culture.
It should now become clear that the goal of a civilized society should be to protect individual rights from being infringed upon. The NAP is an essential foundation for a moral society. As such, it needs to be defended strongly and consistently. The next post will deal with common criticisms of the NAP.