Big FREEDOM! Stuff > The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will
Moral Theory of Non-aggression
Magnaniman:
The problem I'm pointing out is the difficulty of finding ways to deal with people that refuse to live by the NAP when you are restricting your own actions by it. If someone messes up and takes responsibility for their actions, there's no problem. However, dealing with, say, a serial killer or serial rapist is something fundamentally different. That's not the sort of person that you can just leave alone to live freely in your midst.
Calling in a "dispute resolution team" to solve the issue is not an answer. What would they actually do? If they're expected to make decisions and do things that other people aren't free to do, they're no different than police.
The way I see it, there are three general ways that communities can deal with violations of the NAP. The first is forgiveness, the preferred method that would be used most often. In the case that a person understands that they did something wrong and works to make amends, they should be welcomed back into the community. The omission of forgiveness is the fundamental problem with our current system of crime punishment. It's a permanent mark that creates an oftentimes insurmountable hurdle into reintegration of offenders, which creates resentment and and inability to participate in healthy interactions which drives a person back into destructive behaviors. With forgiveness, we open a path to healing, reform, and, perhaps, honest compensation for the wrongs committed.
Second is sanctions of some sort. In the case that a person refuses to admit fault, but their violations are minor, sanctions can be used as a sort of material peer pressure to induce compensation. This can include embargoes, increased fees for goods/services rendered, or other passive aggressive non-aggressive methods. For whatever reason, this seems to be the preferred method of NAP proponents for any and all offenses. For society to function in a healthy manner, this should be an alternative option for repeated violations or more egregious violations in which the perpetrator does not take responsibility, not a go-to solution for everything. It creates resentment and desperation, which, as I said before, increases the likelihood of further violations. I cannot stress the importance of forgiveness enough in dealing with most problems.
Last is removal of the perpetrator from the community. This would be used in the case of a person who refuses to live by the NAP, violates it flagrantly, and whose continued presence or existence is a clear danger to other individuals. Make no mistake, "removal" means either exile or death. Imprisonment is just a form of slavery, so it's not an option. Obviously, any way you carry this out, it is a violation of the NAP. However, it is completely necessary for the sustainability of any society. This should be a measure of last resort, but to deny it completely and simply wait for an opportunity for self defense, hoping that it will be successful, is insane. In a best case scenario, the outcome is the same as just executing someone, while in a worst case scenario, there are more victims and a greater potential exists for the dissolution of the community because, obviously, it doesn't protect people from violent murderers, rapists, et al.
So, while I don't recommend violating the NAP to enforce the NAP on a regular basis, in some situations it is necessary for personal survival and survival of the community. Waiting to witness a violation of the NAP by a person who is known to violate the NAP, merely so you can frame punishment as self defense is, like I said, self-defeating and wasteful. Some concession to necessity must be made within our understanding of the NAP so that it can actually flourish as a way of life, otherwise, we are putting ourselves at a severe disadvantage when dealing with those who mean us harm. There are some very difficult distinctions to make, but we need to figure them out, or this idea will simply fail and people will, again, clamor for the false platitudes of rulership.
FreedomIsOurDestiny:
Very well thought out, Magnaniman. I agree with each step and agree that forgiveness will be the cornerstone in dealing with violations of NAP. A dispute resolution team would serve as consultants to the parties involved. If the offender is not going to make amends they could provide possible courses of action and make a determination on the chosen course of action by the community. No one would be granted privileges beyond what NAP would provide to anyone.
I don't see the forced removal of a serial killer, which may very well end up in death during the exile, would violate NAP. If someone or even a group of people were killing community members they would be terrorizing the remaining citizens. Causing anyone to live in fear of their life is a violation of NAP and self defense would apply in this case. Even though a physical act of aggression may not be happening at the moment, creating and sustaining these conditions is still an act of aggression.
I am still learning the philosophy, but it was like an epiphany when it fully made sense to me. I have been applying the principles in my interactions with everyone. I have noticed that I haven't held any judgments against others making these interactions much more pleasant. I was watching Game of Thrones and watched the violence of an army battle with sadness and disgust wheras I would have seen it as tense and exhilarating before. The shift in conscious is profound to say the least.
Magnaniman:
Thank you! Your questions, comments, and suggestions are definitely helping me express these ideas.
You have an interesting way of framing this dilemma within the NAP: "Causing anyone to live in fear of their life is a violation of NAP."
I can see potential for abuse there, though. Fear is not something you can control or verify when it exists in others. Oftentimes, people are afraid of harmless things, like spiders. I think some clarification is in order.
I would cite, perhaps a history of NAP violations, but a particularly flagrant violation might fit the bill as well... As I said, there are some difficult distinctions to make here, but, as you pointed out, it's going to depend upon the determination of the community in which the violation took place. Really, though, that ultimately boils down to a group of people sitting in judgement over another, with that person's freedom to come and go as they please, or even their very life, at stake. This does still feel like a violation of the NAP or, at least, of the concept of self ownership.
Mike26:
I'm loving the suggested steps with forgiveness and mercy being the cornerstone, not justice. With the extreme cases, how about an "Australia- exile" concept? The resolution teams provide basic survival skills to the offender, and exile him/ her to an island with the tools they need for survival. This could be a colony of exiles eventually if there are enough offenders, and they would be free to live as they please on their island. Thoughts?
FreedomIsOurDestiny:
Likewise, Magnaniman :D. To narrow down the definition of causing fear: the threat of violence against someone or a group of people. This could include verbal threats as well as repeated acts of aggression. Justice would be the basis for determining the next steps. A serial killer would be handled different than a burglar which would be handled differently than a rapist.
Hi Mike. I don't see an island exile as viable considering it would need to be uninhabited at the start. Maybe there are some livable, uninhabited islands left. I also don't see the benefit for anyone, including the offenders, to isolate them all together. If an individual clearly can't live amongst other humans peacefully, why would we expect that they could accomplish that together? My initial thoughts would be to send them to an "institution" (for lack of a better word) to live with people that specialize in working with someone like this. There would probably only be 1 violent offender there at a time. The conditions would have to be such that they are allowed to move about the property freely, but at the same time not allowed to leave which still feels like incarceration to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version