Unable to take NAP/NIOF seriously

[Samson Corwell]

Rand's thing was "non-initiation of force" and Rothbard's NAP defined "aggression" as initiation of force. If someone puts their money down for a second and I snatch it when they aren't looking, then how do I run afoul of either of those two?

Here are other things that don't involve force initiation:

• Hacking.
• Trespass.
• Dumping garbage onto someone else's property.
• Breach of contract.
• Murdering someone by dropping poison into their drink when they aren't looking.
• Not paying for the food you eat at a restaurant.

An honest reading of "initiation of force" would permit the things listed above. It could even allow taxation if the tax collectors were surreptitious about it! (They come in the middle of the night and take a few dollars out of your safe.) So why does anyone continue to use that word choice? Other movements don't try to act like all of their positions can be spun from a single sentence. It would be better to accept that trying to do it that way leaves a lot of openings through which undesirable policies can slip through.

[Peter]

You are assuming there are only two types of Randian crimes and I am sure Rand upheld almost all laws as just and needed, in a free society. Speeding in a vehicle: A crime. Stealth theft of a value is the same as coercing so I would suggest it is a form of “the initiation of force too.”

What about if you know something bad is going to happen to someone but you don’t tell them? What would that fall under? A gray area? Morally wrong but not a crime? Is there some value to The Ten Commandments. (minus one about having no other gods but the approved mythical being?) Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Samson,

To make the argument you made, you need to read more of the literature. This question has been debated to death, even by Rand.

Hell, even go in the other direction. Rather than accept NIOF at face value as a be-all and end-all, why not ask the following? (After all, brains are made for thinking...)

Is boxing initiation of force? Demolition derbies?

 

How about American football?

Dig around. You will find all this discussed over and over.

btw - Happy Superbowl tomorrow everyone.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, Samson Corwell said:

Rand's thing was "non-initiation of force" and Rothbard's NAP defined "aggression" as initiation of force. If someone puts their money down for a second and I snatch it when they aren't looking, then how do I run afoul of either of those two?

Here are other things that don't involve force initiation:

• Hacking.
• Trespass.
• Dumping garbage onto someone else's property.
• Breach of contract.
• Murdering someone by dropping poison into their drink when they aren't looking.
• Not paying for the food you eat at a restaurant.

An honest reading of "initiation of force" would permit the things listed above. It could even allow taxation if the tax collectors were surreptitious about it! (They come in the middle of the night and take a few dollars out of your safe.) So why does anyone continue to use that word choice? Other movements don't try to act like all of their positions can be spun from a single sentence. It would be better to accept that trying to do it that way leaves a lot of openings through which undesirable policies can slip through.

It's initiation of force because it's done without consent of a property owner.

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

Hi Samson,

You are using "force" as what is felt at the end of swung baseball bat. "Force" in this context means as opposed to consent, so everything in your list is an initiation of force. In each case consent was defeated. There was no negotiation, instead the outcome was forced on the one whose consent was required.