Jump to content

Talk:Non-aggression principle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on main definition of the NAP

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has concluded, option A is consensus. BeŻet (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How should the NAP be defined in the lead? BeŻet (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All sources in the article describe the NAP as a concept which forbids "aggression" against another person or their property, and most sources specify that retaliation is allowed under the principle. However, despite this, should we define the NAP as just a "principle that prohibits aggression"?

A) The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a concept in which "aggression", defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property,[note 1] is inherently wrong.[1][2] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism[failed verification] and minarchism.[4][5][6][7] In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense.[3] There is no single or universal interpretation or definition of the NAP as it faces several definitional issues, including those revolving around intellectual property, force, abortion, and other topics.
B) The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a principle that prohibits aggression. In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense.[3] Interpretations of the NAP vary in their treatment of intellectual property, force, abortion and other topics, depending on what they consider "aggression". For example, some interpretations characterize aggression as "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property". [8][9] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism[failed verification] and minarchism.[10][11][12][13]

BeŻet (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the lengthy discussion above, I have argued that that defining the NAP as just a "principle that prohibits aggression" is WP:OR, because none of the sources define it as just that. Most sources mention that retaliation is allowed and all of them state that the aggression is an interference with a person or their property. Therefore, the simpler definition is simply not accurate. Moreover, the NAP is a concept that is almost uniquely used in right libertarianism, and is not compatible with other doctrines that forbid aggression, like pacifism. Therefore, I'd like to suggest to simply stating what the sources state. @AP295: I am just summarizing my point of view here so no need to reply to me here, again, because you have made your point of view perfectly clear above. BeŻet (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No A: My problem with defining the NAP as a "principle that prohibits aggression" is that it is completely uninformative. It's like defining a blueberry as a "berry that is blue". This gets worse when you realize that the definition of "aggression" in the principle is a libertarian jargon definition. (That all said, I think this RfC violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL since I could quite clearly tell which side you were on simply by reading the RfC description.) Loki (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LokiTheLiar: Sorry, I couldn't think of a way of wording it differently. If you could help me word it in a more neutral way, we could cross out my version and use a better one. BeŻet (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I would phrase it:
    How should the non-aggression principal be defined in the lead?
    A) The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a concept in which "aggression", defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property,[note 2] is inherently wrong.
    B) The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a principle that prohibits aggression. In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense. Interpretations of the NAP vary in their treatment of intellectual property, force, abortion and other topics, depending on what they consider "aggression". For example, some interpretations characterize aggression as "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property".
    Loki (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You might as well include both proposed versions of the lead in their entirety. AP295 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or better yet, the diff between the two versions. I worry that the point I'm trying to make here is not getting through. AP295 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This essentially is the diff between the two versions, though I admit I missed the bit at the end of the newer version. I've struck out the bit that's shared above. Loki (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the part you struck out is not shared between the two versions we're talking about. AP295 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. In that case:

How should the non-aggression principal be defined in the lead?
A) The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a concept in which "aggression", defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property,[note 3] is inherently wrong.[14][15] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism[failed verification] and minarchism.[16][17][18][19] In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense.[3] There is no single or universal interpretation or definition of the NAP as it faces several definitional issues, including those revolving around intellectual property, force, abortion, and other topics.
B) The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a principle that prohibits aggression. In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense.[3] Interpretations of the NAP vary in their treatment of intellectual property, force, abortion and other topics, depending on what they consider "aggression". For example, some interpretations characterize aggression as "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property". [20][21] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism[failed verification] and minarchism.[22][23][24][25]

Loki (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with B here is that is is self-contradictory. It says that the principle prohibits agression, but then says that it allows retaliation. BeŻet (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not remove the circular reference to aggression entirely? Just say The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom and the non-initiation of force, is a concept in which initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual, their personal possessions, or their private property is inherently wrong. Even with that I feel that both versions are imperfect in that they fail to fully identify what makes the NAP distinct from other comparable concepts - making the distinction between it and pacifism is important, but I feel the lead should go into more detail on the extent to which the NAP protects private property - it places far more moral weight on it than most comparable principles, which is really its most noteworthy aspect. After all, there are few moral codes that allow unrestrained aggression - the unique / notable thing about the NAP is its idiosyncratic definition of "aggression", not the fact that it forbids people from randomly stabbing each other. --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're begging the question here: "This gets worse when you realize that the definition of "aggression" in the principle is a libertarian jargon definition." AP295 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-neutral RfC AP295 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, out of these two, since B falls into a silly circular definition of "aggression" and misses what's actually significant about the NAP, but it's probably necessary to go into more detail than even A does. Also, both versions list too many synonyms - most of those are not significant enough to go in the first sentence, and listing so many makes the lead clunky. I'd limit it to one unless there is extremely good sourcing showing that the other phrases are commonly-used. "Non-coercion principle" and "zero aggression principle" in particular don't seem to have much use. --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: It is not a circular definition, it depends only on the meaning of "aggression" which is defined in any English dictionary. It would be much easier to compare and reconcile different interpretations of the NAP if we do not put forth our own idiosyncratic definition of "aggression", and instead discuss what "aggression" means with respect to different specific sources. This would obviate all of the "definitional problems" that the article belabors and uses as a basis for criticism. At the very least, the article is contrary to WP:NPOV in its current state. AP295 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: I think it's a classic example of a circular definition. This source gives an example of one: A cellular phone is a phone that is cellular. So saying that the non-agression principle is a principle that forbids agression is a circular definition - it provides zero value to everyone who can deduce as much by simply looking at the term. BeŻet (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: The meaning of "cellular" in that context is ambiguous. There are various interpretations and definitions of "aggression" but they all more or less jibe with the sort of definition you'd find in a dictionary. It is not a circular definition or statement. Version B also includes an instance of a more specific interpretation, so the reader is unlikely to be confused or misguided. Stop grasping at straws. AP295 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: I'm not sure how this is "grasping at straws" when everyone else is disagreeing with you. As we've explained a million times now, the NAP is more than just a rejection of agressive behaviour, which even your version acknowledges by promptly stating that retaliation is allowed: so you are already establishing some context and conditions. Finally, aggression is absolutely ambigious, because it could mean a number of things: feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour, overt or suppressed hostility either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself, a violent attack or threats by one person against another person or by one country against another country, unprovoked agressive or intimidating behaviour, a hostile attitude etc., and as we said a million times now, the "aggression" in the NAP has a specific meaning. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. BeŻet (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: Grammatically, the definition you cited earlier states the NAP only as a principle forbidding aggression. And I don't know why you use the word "retaliation". The NAP allows the use of force in self-defense, not just any retaliatory use of force. Once again, the Merriam-Webster definition of aggression reads: "A forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master". This, along with common understanding of the word "aggression" do not generally include the use of force to defend oneself from aggression, as aggression. We've been through this already. AP295 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: And you should have dropped the stick the moment I explained why the statement of the NAP in the source you provided does not constrain the NAP to a specific form of aggression, and the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause, which you still do not seem to get. But you threw a big fit about it, and so with great patience, I try again to explain it in such a way you can understand. AP295 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus to make your changes, other editors have disagreed with you and tried to explain to you why you're wrong. You're the one holding the stick. It's time to move on. BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Long, Roderick (2008). "Nonaggression Axiom". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 357–60. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n219. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. ...except in response to the initiation ... of similar forcible interference ....
  2. ^ Zwolinski, M. (2016). THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(2), 62-90. doi:10.1017/S026505251600011X
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Phred Barnet. "The Non-Aggression Principle (Americanly Yours, April 14, 2011)". Retrieved November 22, 2011.
  4. ^ "The Morality of Libertarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
  5. ^ "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Lew Rockwell. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  6. ^ "What is the "non-aggression principle"?". Advocates for Small Government. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  7. ^ "Discovering Libertarianism – Non-Aggression Principle". Young Americans for Liberty. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  8. ^ Long, Roderick (2008). "Nonaggression Axiom". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 357–60. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n219. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. ...except in response to the initiation ... of similar forcible interference ....
  9. ^ Zwolinski, M. (2016). THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(2), 62-90. doi:10.1017/S026505251600011X
  10. ^ "The Morality of Libertarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
  11. ^ "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Lew Rockwell. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  12. ^ "What is the "non-aggression principle"?". Advocates for Small Government. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  13. ^ "Discovering Libertarianism – Non-Aggression Principle". Young Americans for Liberty. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  14. ^ Long, Roderick (2008). "Nonaggression Axiom". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 357–60. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n219. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. ...except in response to the initiation ... of similar forcible interference ....
  15. ^ Zwolinski, M. (2016). THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(2), 62-90. doi:10.1017/S026505251600011X
  16. ^ "The Morality of Libertarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
  17. ^ "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Lew Rockwell. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  18. ^ "What is the "non-aggression principle"?". Advocates for Small Government. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  19. ^ "Discovering Libertarianism – Non-Aggression Principle". Young Americans for Liberty. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  20. ^ Long, Roderick (2008). "Nonaggression Axiom". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 357–60. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n219. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. ...except in response to the initiation ... of similar forcible interference ....
  21. ^ Zwolinski, M. (2016). THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(2), 62-90. doi:10.1017/S026505251600011X
  22. ^ "The Morality of Libertarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
  23. ^ "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Lew Rockwell. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  24. ^ "What is the "non-aggression principle"?". Advocates for Small Government. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  25. ^ "Discovering Libertarianism – Non-Aggression Principle". Young Americans for Liberty. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-03-22.

References

  1. ^ Within the context of the NAP, property is defined as both personal possessions and private property.
  2. ^ Within the context of the NAP, property is defined as both personal possessions and private property.
  3. ^ Within the context of the NAP, property is defined as both personal possessions and private property.

A warning and appeal on communicating Rand's views without causing confusion

[edit]

It is said that Rand arrives at the NAP from "observable" reality etc. While this is not necessarily wrong, it may not communicate all that well her actual position as opposed to naive realism.

She did not merely "observe out there in the material world" without respect for the inner workings of the mind and the need for virtues like genuine confidence (not rationalism, or con-man antics). This is analogous to certain arguments that religious observers use for a necessary "faith", which on the other hand was a term she rejected. 83.255.181.74 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you, thank you for your comments! Do you have a suggestion of what we should write instead? And a source that can verify this? Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The origins often being with Rand, even when coming from other proponents or altered concepts

[edit]

For example, Rothbard did not arrive at the concept in isolation. He had been a part of Rand's circle and used her terminology to kickstart his own reasoning on the topic, then applying it in conjunction with traditionally more left-wing ideas to embrace his new version of anarchism and libertarianism. 83.255.181.74 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Ayn Rand

[edit]

Should Ayn Rand even be mentioned in this article? Neither Ayn Rand, Objectivism, nor the two sources have any mention of Non-aggression principle. Furthermore, our text says: "She stressed that the political principle of non-aggression is not a primary and that it only has validity as a consequence of a more fundamental philosophy. For this reason, many of her conclusions differ from others who hold the NAP as an axiom or arrived at it differently." So, why is she mentioned? Lova Falk (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN hyphens

[edit]

We have ISBNs posted 9 times for the various citations. Some of them have "full" hyphenation, and some have "partial" or no hyphenation. I propose we decide on one method and make some changes. Comments? – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-aggression_principle&oldid=1304356645"