I understand where you are coming from, but is it all embrassing and glorious as you said.
Coming from philosophy, ZAP has its loop holes, it is impossible to apply consistently in practice; respectively, consequentialist or deontological criticisms, and inconsistency criticisms. Libertarian academic philosophers have noted the implausible results consistently applying the principle yields: for example, Professor Matt Zwolinski notes that, because pollution necessarily violates the NAP by encroaching (even if slightly) on other people's property, consistently applying the NAP would prohibit driving, starting a fire, and other activities necessary to the maintenance of industrial society. So where does it get us to.
you can't APPLY ZAP...in the sense that you can't force someone else to do it.
That would be initiation of force...
ZAP is not something you DO...it's something you Do NOT do.
so..you can either be an aggressor...or not.
up to you.
The ZAP is shown to be pretty much a shallow principle. When limited to actual physical force, it’s superseded and made obsolete by moral systems which can explain when force is justified or not. When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitive, its subjective nature quickly devolves it to shouting matches which can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state.
To me, when someone explains that according to the NAP, this or that is wrong, they mostly sound like “This or that is wrong, because I say so.”
You have made a really reasonable argument based on your perspective, and that's fine. But I think I have an issue with the All or nothing attitude towards risk of ZAP. The ZAP clearly implies that it’s wrong for me to shoot you in the head. But, for example, what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five? Of course, almost everything we do imposes some risk of harm on innocent persons. We run this risk when we drive on the highway (what if we suffer a heart attack, or become distracted), or when we fly airplanes over populated areas. Most of us think that some of these risks are justifiable, while others are not, and that the difference between them has something to do with the size and likelihood of the risked harm, the importance of the risky activity, and the availability and cost of less risky activities. But considerations like this carry zero weight in the ZAP’s absolute prohibition on aggression. That principle seems compatible with only two possible rules: either all risks are permissible (because they are not really aggression until they actually result in a harm), or none are (because they are). And neither of these seems sensible.
I really hope this helps us get more understanding.
really?
I would have expected that you would have looked it up if that were the case.
Let me help. Zap
in which it says Don’t initiate force, or ask politicians to do it for you
somewhat similar to
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
perhaps you've heard of it?
For me, ZAP has its issues as a moral guideline, but the central point generally seems to be that no human should aggress over another human. This is meant to mean the initial use of coercive force as well as the threat of such.
Now, if left to this end, this is not a half-bad principle, basically saying that people shouldn’t attack or threaten to attack others. However at this stage, it is also pretty much unnecessary to be given an explicit existence as a “principle” as the generic principle of freedom already encompasses this (i.e. attacking another person would violate their freedom). Other moral theories, particularly the utilitarian variants already encompass such rules (with stipulation) as a natural consequence of their suggestions. In the end, this basic form of non-aggression ends up sounding like a shallow “Thou shalt not kill” which, while pretty clear, when strictly adhered to can lead to worse results (such as foregoing killing in self-defence) or requires a more advanced moral framework above it which clarifies when it is, in fact, acceptable to kill.
But propertarians do not generally leave it at just that but rather try to sneakily expand it by linking it with private property rights. You see, the NAP is frequently derived directly from the Self-Ownership “axiom” and thus the wrongly derived property rights are treated as an extension of the self. Therefore one can then treat violation of private property rights as an act of “initated force”, even though no actual violence or threat of violence has been perpetuated. This is turn is used as a cause to use actual violence or threat of violence on the violator of property rights.
It thus becomes that the NAP, when combined with Self-Ownership conveniently becomes an excuse for someone to initiate real, literal violence against someone else. The right to freedom or utilitarian moral rules reserve the right for people to defend themselves against aggression, that is, to take only as much action as needed to stop the aggression against their person. This is pretty self-evident when achieved, both to the one being attacked and to any observers (i.e. it’s obvious when two people have stopped exchanging blows and threats). When extended to private property however, things get far far more complex.
While it’s easy to understand that someone “aggresses” when they steal something from another person (which is why most other moral systems do not require a NAP to label theft as wrong), things get pretty murky when one goes beyond that. Do I “initiate force” when I use a productive machine without paying rent? How about if I pay only enough rent to cover the cost of the machine? Do I “initiate force” when I toil the unused land that is owned by someone else? How about when I trespass?
it can NOT be enforced.
it's an INDIVIDUAL philosophy.
You don't seem to understand that the initiation of FORCE..
no matter by who, no matter for what reason.
is WRONG.
Ok got it. So it can't be enforced but rather it's an individual philosophy.
Is everyone expected to adopt this philosophy?
What about rogue actors?
How will it solve all the worlds problems if not everyone will act according to the ZAP principles?
How will ZAP completely get rid of all evil/insanity forever?
What will happen if people are left to their own conscience and hasn't history already showed that people acting in their own interest turn out badly time and time again?
do you want to live in sin?
take care of your ownself and live a sin free life
leave other people alone to live their own life.
as long as they don't bother you.
if they do
retaliate with appropriate force.
It's really good to hear what you have to say about ZAP, but you have to also consider that it has a loop hole.
NAP does not allow for positive rights.
Critics argue that the non-aggression principle is not ethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when they would consider the results of such initiation to be morally superior to the alternatives that they have identified. A renoun philosopher in the person of Matt Zwolinski, has proposed the following scenario: "Suppose that by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, I could provide life-saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children. Even if we grant that taxation is aggression, and that aggression is generally wrong, is it really so obvious that the relatively minor aggression involved in these examples is wrong, given the tremendous benefit it produces?
So. IMO I would go with what @humanearl has said in his post. ZAP is not as glorious as you have said, it has loop holes
define what you mean by positive rights.
I suspect that no such thing exists.
the only rights you have are what you are born with
and everyone has the same.
Oh, I meant to write property rights
With respect to property rights, ZAP is incompatible with any practice that produces any pollution, because pollution encroaches on the property rights of others. Therefore, the ZAP prohibits both driving and starting fires. ZAP is unable to place a sensible limitation on risk-creating behavior.
I don't see how that applies.
Zap means do not initiate force.
If I buy some land...(which is currently impossible...since it can be taxed, therefore it can be taken away for not paying taxes..therefore I don't own it...I'm just renting it) I can do anything on that land that I please....as long as what I do STAYS on that land.
As far as pollution...domes are a thing.
Odd that you mention pollution. One man's pollution is (or can be) another man's natural resource.
I understand where you are coming from, but is it all embrassing and glorious as you said.
Coming from philosophy, ZAP has its loop holes, it is impossible to apply consistently in practice; respectively, consequentialist or deontological criticisms, and inconsistency criticisms. Libertarian academic philosophers have noted the implausible results consistently applying the principle yields: for example, Professor Matt Zwolinski notes that, because pollution necessarily violates the NAP by encroaching (even if slightly) on other people's property, consistently applying the NAP would prohibit driving, starting a fire, and other activities necessary to the maintenance of industrial society. So where does it get us to.
you can't APPLY ZAP...in the sense that you can't force someone else to do it.
That would be initiation of force...
ZAP is not something you DO...it's something you Do NOT do.
so..you can either be an aggressor...or not.
up to you.
The ZAP is shown to be pretty much a shallow principle. When limited to actual physical force, it’s superseded and made obsolete by moral systems which can explain when force is justified or not. When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitive, its subjective nature quickly devolves it to shouting matches which can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state.
To me, when someone explains that according to the NAP, this or that is wrong, they mostly sound like “This or that is wrong, because I say so.”
I like shallow principles. They are easy to understand. Easy to apply I've noticed that DEEP principles tend to cause drowning.
You have made a really reasonable argument based on your perspective, and that's fine. But I think I have an issue with the All or nothing attitude towards risk of ZAP. The ZAP clearly implies that it’s wrong for me to shoot you in the head. But, for example, what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five? Of course, almost everything we do imposes some risk of harm on innocent persons. We run this risk when we drive on the highway (what if we suffer a heart attack, or become distracted), or when we fly airplanes over populated areas. Most of us think that some of these risks are justifiable, while others are not, and that the difference between them has something to do with the size and likelihood of the risked harm, the importance of the risky activity, and the availability and cost of less risky activities. But considerations like this carry zero weight in the ZAP’s absolute prohibition on aggression. That principle seems compatible with only two possible rules: either all risks are permissible (because they are not really aggression until they actually result in a harm), or none are (because they are). And neither of these seems sensible.
I really hope this helps us get more understanding.
if you point a gun at me that's a credible threat.
I'm justified, in accordance with ZAP, in responding appropriately.
Please fill me in. I really want to understand what it is
really?
I would have expected that you would have looked it up if that were the case.
Let me help.
Zap
in which it says
Don’t initiate force, or ask politicians to do it for you
somewhat similar to
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
perhaps you've heard of it?
For me, ZAP has its issues as a moral guideline, but the central point generally seems to be that no human should aggress over another human. This is meant to mean the initial use of coercive force as well as the threat of such.
Now, if left to this end, this is not a half-bad principle, basically saying that people shouldn’t attack or threaten to attack others. However at this stage, it is also pretty much unnecessary to be given an explicit existence as a “principle” as the generic principle of freedom already encompasses this (i.e. attacking another person would violate their freedom). Other moral theories, particularly the utilitarian variants already encompass such rules (with stipulation) as a natural consequence of their suggestions. In the end, this basic form of non-aggression ends up sounding like a shallow “Thou shalt not kill” which, while pretty clear, when strictly adhered to can lead to worse results (such as foregoing killing in self-defence) or requires a more advanced moral framework above it which clarifies when it is, in fact, acceptable to kill.
But propertarians do not generally leave it at just that but rather try to sneakily expand it by linking it with private property rights. You see, the NAP is frequently derived directly from the Self-Ownership “axiom” and thus the wrongly derived property rights are treated as an extension of the self. Therefore one can then treat violation of private property rights as an act of “initated force”, even though no actual violence or threat of violence has been perpetuated. This is turn is used as a cause to use actual violence or threat of violence on the violator of property rights.
It thus becomes that the NAP, when combined with Self-Ownership conveniently becomes an excuse for someone to initiate real, literal violence against someone else. The right to freedom or utilitarian moral rules reserve the right for people to defend themselves against aggression, that is, to take only as much action as needed to stop the aggression against their person. This is pretty self-evident when achieved, both to the one being attacked and to any observers (i.e. it’s obvious when two people have stopped exchanging blows and threats). When extended to private property however, things get far far more complex.
While it’s easy to understand that someone “aggresses” when they steal something from another person (which is why most other moral systems do not require a NAP to label theft as wrong), things get pretty murky when one goes beyond that. Do I “initiate force” when I use a productive machine without paying rent? How about if I pay only enough rent to cover the cost of the machine? Do I “initiate force” when I toil the unused land that is owned by someone else? How about when I trespass?
“Thou shalt not kill”
yeah..that's pretty stupid. It's also a mis-translation. The original meaning is "thou shat not murder"....not the same thing.
You are twisting yourself into knots. What's so hard to understand.
Do NOT initiate force...or hire a hitman to do it for you.
I did look it up after you first mentioned it but I thought maybe you had a broader definition or something.
Yea I've heard of it for sure. I'm just still wondering how that can be consistently enforced.
it can NOT be enforced.
it's an INDIVIDUAL philosophy.
You don't seem to understand that the initiation of FORCE..
no matter by who, no matter for what reason.
is WRONG.
Ok got it. So it can't be enforced but rather it's an individual philosophy.
Is everyone expected to adopt this philosophy?
What about rogue actors?
How will it solve all the worlds problems if not everyone will act according to the ZAP principles?
How will ZAP completely get rid of all evil/insanity forever?
What will happen if people are left to their own conscience and hasn't history already showed that people acting in their own interest turn out badly time and time again?
do you want to live in sin?
take care of your ownself and live a sin free life
leave other people alone to live their own life.
as long as they don't bother you.
if they do
retaliate with appropriate force.
It's really good to hear what you have to say about ZAP, but you have to also consider that it has a loop hole.
NAP does not allow for positive rights.
Critics argue that the non-aggression principle is not ethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when they would consider the results of such initiation to be morally superior to the alternatives that they have identified. A renoun philosopher in the person of Matt Zwolinski, has proposed the following scenario: "Suppose that by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, I could provide life-saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children. Even if we grant that taxation is aggression, and that aggression is generally wrong, is it really so obvious that the relatively minor aggression involved in these examples is wrong, given the tremendous benefit it produces?
So. IMO I would go with what @humanearl has said in his post. ZAP is not as glorious as you have said, it has loop holes
define what you mean by positive rights.
I suspect that no such thing exists.
the only rights you have are what you are born with
and everyone has the same.
Oh, I meant to write property rights
With respect to property rights, ZAP is incompatible with any practice that produces any pollution, because pollution encroaches on the property rights of others. Therefore, the ZAP prohibits both driving and starting fires. ZAP is unable to place a sensible limitation on risk-creating behavior.
That's my major issue with ZAP
I don't see how that applies.
Zap means do not initiate force.
If I buy some land...(which is currently impossible...since it can be taxed, therefore it can be taken away for not paying taxes..therefore I don't own it...I'm just renting it) I can do anything on that land that I please....as long as what I do STAYS on that land.
As far as pollution...domes are a thing.
Odd that you mention pollution. One man's pollution is (or can be) another man's natural resource.