In last Friday’s article, I mentioned two groups of libertarians that I thought made near mirror-image errors about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
However, even there, one can come up with edge cases and abstruse hypothetical scenarios to supposedly "defeat" it. "What if I can save the Earth from invading space aliens by encroaching on someone's property without their consent? Haha—gotcha."
Except no. We don't understand reality through edge cases. Generally speaking, it IS wrong to violate someone's consent—to damage, take, encroach, initiate coercive force upon, or fraudulently usurp their person, property, or liberty. However, if a situation arises that makes it a difficult decision, then that is where a common-law process comes in. And reasonable humans will come up with just ways to adjudicate those specific edge cases. "Yes, Mr. Smith, we know he walked onto your farm, but he did save the world…"
Philosophy isn't helpful if it leads you to a conclusion that everyone knows is wrong. (Like Rothbard's baby-starving error.) The NAP and/or the Law of Consent are excellent rules. The fact that they don't perfectly cover every conceivable situation doesn't make them any less excellent.
Agreed. Principles are great, they help us make good laws. Then when principle meets context in the nitty-gritty, details get fleshed out.
It would greatly help our movement if they had a better understanding of how proper common law works. Principle applied to specific context. It really is a beautiful process filled with brilliant people - when done properly.
Personally, I prefer a law of consent, along the lines of that which I lay out here: https://www.theadvocates.org/your-masters-are-lying-to-you/
However, even there, one can come up with edge cases and abstruse hypothetical scenarios to supposedly "defeat" it. "What if I can save the Earth from invading space aliens by encroaching on someone's property without their consent? Haha—gotcha."
Except no. We don't understand reality through edge cases. Generally speaking, it IS wrong to violate someone's consent—to damage, take, encroach, initiate coercive force upon, or fraudulently usurp their person, property, or liberty. However, if a situation arises that makes it a difficult decision, then that is where a common-law process comes in. And reasonable humans will come up with just ways to adjudicate those specific edge cases. "Yes, Mr. Smith, we know he walked onto your farm, but he did save the world…"
Philosophy isn't helpful if it leads you to a conclusion that everyone knows is wrong. (Like Rothbard's baby-starving error.) The NAP and/or the Law of Consent are excellent rules. The fact that they don't perfectly cover every conceivable situation doesn't make them any less excellent.
Agreed. Principles are great, they help us make good laws. Then when principle meets context in the nitty-gritty, details get fleshed out.
It would greatly help our movement if they had a better understanding of how proper common law works. Principle applied to specific context. It really is a beautiful process filled with brilliant people - when done properly.
Modern legislation is a huge perversion of law.
Yes to all of that.
I have given up hoping that "the" society will change, however. Instead, I am working on building a new society.