Hey Right-Wing People, I Have a Question About NAP

[PC LOAD LETTER]

How do you guys reconcile NAP (non-aggression principle) with private land ownership?

I have been asking AnCaps/Libertarians this for a long time and can't get a straight answer.

[Veovis]

To play devil's advocate, they usually say that it's never ok to use violence unless you're protecting what's 'yours.'

[Revolution starts with U]

Today in the news: National Defense Force Inc announces that they have solid evidence linking the recent violence to the Iraqi Liberation Society. In defense of their customers property they have announced they will begin siezing strategic assets in order to quell the violence and bring the perpetrators to justice.

:thumbup1: NAP

[kapitalyst]

Wikipedia:

The non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, or NAP, for short) is an moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) stance which asserts that aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression) is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. In contrast to pacifism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism), the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-0) NAP is held by its supporters to lead to the moral condemnation of theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism), assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault), and fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud).
Does this help you answer your own question? Or?... What is there to reconcile?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Wikipedia:

The non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, or NAP, for short) is an moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) stance which asserts that aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression) is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. In contrast to pacifism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism), the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-0) NAP is held by its supporters to lead to the moral condemnation of theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism), assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault), and fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud).Does this help you answer your own question? Or?... What is there to reconcile?
What I'm more curious about, I should have clarified is ownership of remote, unused property for the sake of owning it. Say somebody in the area this remote property becomes homeless (Err, maybe fascists decided to take his/her land in the name of something and stake their flag there. just something happened) and they begin camping on unused land. The owner is in the area visiting relatives and passes by his unused property, sees the homeless man or woman camping there, then has them removed.

How would an action like this fit into the NAP considering there was no aggression against the owner to warrant self defense?

My laptop battery's about to run out, I'll come back later and post more generalized scenario. This one's kind of too specific.

[kapitalyst]

What I'm more curious about, I should have clarified is ownership of remote, unused property for the sake of owning it. Say somebody in the area this remote property becomes homeless (Err, maybe fascists decided to take his/her land in the name of something and stake their flag there. just something happened) and they begin camping on unused land. The owner is in the area visiting relatives and passes by his unused property, sees the homeless man or woman camping there, then has them removed.

How would an action like this fit into the NAP considering there was no aggression against the owner to warrant self defense?

My laptop battery's about to run out, I'll come back later and post more generalized scenario. This one's kind of too specific.

Well... how about you come home and find a vagrant sleeping on your sofa? Wouldn't you have him removed? But no one was using the couch -- he decided you didn't need it -- and he wasn't necessarily "aggressive". Of course you'll have him removed. You don't know this man. He could be dangerous and/or intoxicated. He could be there to steal and vandalize. You simply don't know.

If we lived in a world where people didn't kill, steal and destroy, then there'd be no reason to remove the vagrant who lost his home to those dirty fascists. :lol: Trespassing law is an extension of the property system designed to protect people and property from harm.

It's also not my job to decide what you need. That's your job. If you work your ass off to buy a Rolls-Royce and just let it sit in your garage, I have no right to come take it for a spin because you aren't using it at the moment.

[Skooma Addict]

Most people have given up on the NAP. At the end of the day if someone doesn't agree with property rights, then they are not initiating aggression when they violate property rights. People who agree with property rights will think otherwise.

[Robert]

How do you guys reconcile NAP (non-aggression principle) with private land ownership?I'll take a shot at this:

Absent property taxes and a power of expropriation, vested in the state, doing its best to alleviate demonstrable misery, and a right for both the People and the landowner to present their respective claims, I personally cannot reconcile the two. That is, I cannot just "own" vast tracts of unoccupied and untaxed land in a large population center that is needed to alleviate homelessness and say "no one can set foot here cause I got a paper that say I bought it."

But there is really no such thing anymore as Bud has explained, I think: I'm not Richard the Lionheart (http://lesandelys.com/chateau-gaillard/) . The property you want to take is heavily taxed and probably rented out and the rental income is also taxed and the state should use the tax proceeds for the benefit of all citizens. Whether the taxes are high enough to be "fair" we can talk about. That's what referenda and elections are about.

If this isn't enough, and the state takes "my vacant lot" (and for the record I don't have one) in the name of "the People," the People should in my view be required to 1) show that the community necessity outweighs my interests and 2) bear full responsibility for keeping the property clean and safe and the taxes paid.

If none of that works for you, well, there's always revolution. It'll be interesting watching you "democratically decide" who gets to live where after the revolution.

[danyboy27]

Well... how about you come home and find a vagrant sleeping on your sofa? Wouldn't you have him removed? But no one was using the couch -- he decided you didn't need it -- and he wasn't necessarily "aggressive". Of course you'll have him removed. You don't know this man. He could be dangerous and/or intoxicated. He could be there to steal and vandalize. You simply don't know.

If we lived in a world where people didn't kill, steal and destroy, then there'd be no reason to remove the vagrant who lost his home to those dirty fascists. :lol: Trespassing law is an extension of the property system designed to protect people and property from harm.

It's also not my job to decide what you need. That's your job. If you work your ass off to buy a Rolls-Royce and just let it sit in your garage, I have no right to come take it for a spin because you aren't using it at the moment.
the Habitation unit in your exemple (house/appartement) is apparently used by someone else who live there, i am not sure how valid your comparaison is.

in the OP exemple, its pretty clear the land is not used at all by the landowner, he dosnt live there.

[kapitalyst]

If none of that works for you, well, there's always revolution.

Is Germany still exporting those to Russia? :lol:


It'll be interesting watching you "democratically decide" who gets to live where after the revolution.

LOL! Yes, this would be interesting indeed. :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

I think it would be interesting and I think you would see very large segments of the population move to more eco-friendly habitation. I would also not expect to see a quarter mile fence around a property where everything but the little tiny house in the center sees not a thing but a lawnmower once a week.

T'would be interesting indeed.... to bad that's not really what we're talking about, per se.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

the Habitation unit in your exemple (house/appartement) is apparently used by someone else who live there, i am not sure how valid your comparaison is.

in the OP exemple, its pretty clear the land is not used at all by the landowner, he dosnt live there.
Yep. This is exactly what I'm referring to.

I'll take a shot at this:

Absent property taxes and a power of expropriation, vested in the state, doing its best to alleviate demonstrable misery, and a right for both the People and the landowner to present their respective claims, I personally cannot reconcile the two. That is, I cannot just "own" vast tracts of unoccupied and untaxed land in a large population center that is needed to alleviate homelessness and say "no one can set foot here cause I got a paper that say I bought it."

But there is really no such thing anymore as Bud has explained, I think: I'm not Richard the Lionheart (http://lesandelys.com/chateau-gaillard/) . The property you want to take is heavily taxed and probably rented out and the rental income is also taxed and the state should use the tax proceeds for the benefit of all citizens. Whether the taxes are high enough to be "fair" we can talk about. That's what referenda and elections are about.

If this isn't enough, and the state takes "my vacant lot" (and for the record I don't have one) in the name of "the People," the People should in my view be required to 1) show that the community necessity outweighs my interests and 2) bear full responsibility for keeping the property clean and safe and the taxes paid.

If none of that works for you, well, there's always revolution. It'll be interesting watching you "democratically decide" who gets to live where after the revolution.
Well, I'm an anarchist-communist, not a statist; but this isn't about debating my particular beliefs against yours - we both know people on opposite sides of the political spectrum can debate for years and never get anywhere. It's just curiosity.

Although your first paragraph answered my question from your perspective. Thank you.


Most people have given up on the NAP. At the end of the day if someone doesn't agree with property rights, then they are not initiating aggression when they violate property rights. People who agree with property rights will think otherwise.
That's why I find this question's responses so intriguing when I ask people. NAP is absolutely subjective, but this is a question that really brings out whether or not people have a strong altruistic side. Although I should have worded it differently; it kind of assumes the person I'm asking will be in support of having them removed from the otherwise unoccupied land.


Well... how about you come home and find a vagrant sleeping on your sofa? Wouldn't you have him removed? But no one was using the couch -- he decided you didn't need it -- and he wasn't necessarily "aggressive". Of course you'll have him removed. You don't know this man. He could be dangerous and/or intoxicated. He could be there to steal and vandalize. You simply don't know.

If we lived in a world where people didn't kill, steal and destroy, then there'd be no reason to remove the vagrant who lost his home to those dirty fascists. :lol: Trespassing law is an extension of the property system designed to protect people and property from harm.

It's also not my job to decide what you need. That's your job. If you work your ass off to buy a Rolls-Royce and just let it sit in your garage, I have no right to come take it for a spin because you aren't using it at the moment.
Eh, well, this isn't really about coming home and finding strangers sleeping on your couch. It's about unoccupied land that someone is holding ownership of and, if they decide to kick out a homeless person camping there, whether or not it violates the NAP. And if it does, how.

[kapitalyst]

Eh, well, this isn't really about coming home and finding strangers sleeping on your couch. It's about unoccupied land that someone is holding ownership of and, if they decide to kick out a homeless person camping there, whether or not it violates the NAP. And if it does, how.

Yes, and I understand your point. I'm calling into question the philosophical basis of it... essentially that you should be able to decide what someone else really "needs" based on what they're doing with it... that one person can just decide to take or use something that belongs to another person because it's currently vacant or unused. The "not my house!" response was exactly what I hoped to invoke to get the point across. :)

[Leftsolidarity]

Yes, and I understand your point. I'm calling into question the philosophical basis of it... essentially that you should be able to decide what someone else really "needs" based on what they're doing with it... that one person can just decide to take or use something that belongs to another person because it's currently vacant or unused. The "not my house!" response was exactly what I hoped to invoke to get the point across. :)

Your argument is flawed. You are also mixing up personal property for private property.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yes, and I understand your point. I'm calling into question the philosophical basis of it... essentially that you should be able to decide what someone else really "needs" based on what they're doing with it... that one person can just decide to take or use something that belongs to another person because it's currently vacant or unused. The "not my house!" response was exactly what I hoped to invoke to get the point across. :)
I just want to know if the right-wing members of this board would kick the homeless person out, and if so how they reconcile that action with the non-aggression principle. Or, like Skooma said, maybe they have given up on NAP.