How to combat NAP.

[RO17]

How do you argue against the non-aggression principal. It basically states that you should not agree against another, which is covered by the principal of freedom (aggressing against another is violating their freedom) but they in a very sneaky way include private property as an extension to one's self, how would you argue to this?

What do you mean when property is theft?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done away for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its nonexistence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the nonexistence of property for the immense majority of society." - Marx

The appropriation of the fruits of workers' labour is predicated on systemic violence. The only way the bourgeoisie maintain their position of privilege is by aggressively preventing the working class from organising. The capitalists hold the threat of starvation and homelessness over our heads and it's not an aggressive act to deny them of the means by which they do that, namely their hold over private property, but instead a liberating one. The NAP is a nonsensical argument coming from a position of privilege and it's a crying shame that some working class people buy into that crap.

[Sabot Cat]

The best way to counter the NAP is to point out that it how has no experiential or utilitarian basis, like all deontological maxims.

[#FF0000]

How do you argue against the non-aggression principal. It basically states that you should not agree against another, which is covered by the principal of freedom (aggressing against another is violating their freedom) but they in a very sneaky way include private property as an extension to one's self, how would you argue to this?

It's pretty simple. There's no way to establish "property" in the first place without initiating force. How did someone lay claim to the first "owned" parcel of land without saying "this land which was formerly free for all to use is now mine" without using force? The concept of property, as it developed, totally violates the NAP.

Frankly, it's a useless except as an excuse to hold a particular political position without having to actually think, like most loaded political "axioms".

[Czy]

Easy:

All land was stolen at some point in history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Therefore, according to their own principle, property is the initiation of force in and of itself; therefore the NAP is either logically inconsistent or acknowledges that private property cannot be included in the extension of one's self (rendering their entire motive obsolete as they use it to defend property in the first place).

[RO17]

Thank you for the insightful replies, it seems the principal is loaded with internal contradictions.

[Sea]

edit: Fuck it, this is gonna be a new thread.

[Tolstoy]

Shoot the liberterian

[AmilcarCabral]

From my own my point of view, the US ruling class, the US government, the US media, the education system of USA churches, etc. preach anti-violence to americans, preach that americans should hate violence, should hate yelling, insulting offending others, hating others, violating others as a tool to sedate americans in order to control them real easy, and to prevent a socialist revolution of the poor majority against the rich minority

There is an arabian proverb that says: "Paradise lies under the shadows of the swords."

Besides from an ultra-realistic point of view, there are no laws, laws do not exist, laws are not part of nature, laws that ban violence, and stealing are created by humans and most of them by oligarchic humans. There is a song by Tool called "Jerk off" that says that laws only exist if you get caught. So if you are hungry steal food, and if poor people feel oppressed they shoudl overthrow the capitalist class even if its illegal, inmoral and unethical to do that.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: To carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?

KARL MARX: No great movement, has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed. The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination, it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.

LINK: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm


.



How do you argue against the non-aggression principal. It basically states that you should not agree against another, which is covered by the principal of freedom (aggressing against another is violating their freedom) but they in a very sneaky way include private property as an extension to one's self, how would you argue to this?

What do you mean when property is theft?

[tallguy]

What are people's view on here with regards to items whose existence depends on the work of someone. That is to say, if I work up a primary resource from the environment such that its finished form is more than the sum of it's primary constituents. Am I morally entitled to lay claim to ownership of that aspect of the finished form that is identifiably the product of my own efforts over and above those primary constituents?

A real world example being a kitchen table made from a tree. The land the tree came from may be properly calssified as beibng a part of the commons. The tree itself may be slightly more ambiguous in terms of being a part of the commons depending on whether I purposefully planted it or whether it came into existence via natural propagation. The table that I produce from the tree is, by definition not a part of the common since in the absence of my own work, it could never have existed.

So, who may rightly lay claim of ownership of the table?

I'm sure, in the context of socialist/communist theory, these are elementary questions for some on here. but, I am not acquainted with the finer point of the above and so would welcome people's advice and thoughts.