Tuesday, August 13, 2013

The Non-Aggression Principle

(Carla Gericke, President of the Free State Project, speaking in front of Concord City Hall last night before the City Council Meeting began.)

The Non-Agression Principle (NAP) is what members of the Free State Project always point to as an attempt to illustrate to us that they are peaceful, nonviolent individuals. They are adherents of this principle, therefore they come in peace. That they are armed and claiming peaceful intent isn't supposed to occur to us, because hey, they're non-violent! They say so!

This is from the NAP wiki:
The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts thataggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to explain the immorality of theftvandalismassault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.[2] Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation, and military drafts. NAP is the foundation of most present-day libertarian philosophies.

It's not exactly clearly defined. And there's a huge component missing from it - verbal aggression. The Free Staters are very verbally aggressive.  

Last night, Free State President Carla Gericke spoke to the Concord City Council, concerning the poor FSP's wounded feelings about being named as potential domestic terrorists in a grant application by the Concord PD. The Concord PD is trying to get an armored vehicle. The folks turning out to that meeting last night were supposed to be there to protest the militarization of police and the wasteful spending by the Dept. of Homeland Security, but Carla and the Free Staters managed to turn the whole issue into being about them. 

From my notes:
Ms. Gericke was allowed to speak first. She started off by saying that the Free Staters are productive citizens moving here to be part of the shared values of the state. By then she was warmed up, and began to get loud. I hate the word shrill as an adjective because it's so often applied unfairly to women, but she was shrill.  She accused the police chief of perjury. "We're good people. I volunteer for Concord Reads at the Concord Library, and I am deeply offended by this misleading, fraudulent, secret application!" She bellowed that as President of the FSP, she has called for the retraction of this grant and a letter of apology! The people in that room didn't respect her enough to respond to her! And here's where she reached operatic heights: "I will be filing a complaint with the Dept. of Homeland Security!" (An agency of the very gubmint she claims disdain for) She called for the public resignation of all of the people involved with this application. When people make false statements, the penalty is PRISON. 

She was screaming by the end of her comments. She was red faced and angry when she left the room. 

If her intent was to show the City of Concord that the Free Staters are peaceful and nonaggressive, Carla failed in an epic manner. 


susanthe said...

Sorry Bob Robertson. Your comment wasn't really on topic. It wasn't very interesting either. Nor was the lame attempt at making this about me.

Tell me (if you can, and I'm not hopeful in your case) how does verbal aggression fit in with the Non Aggression Principle?

susanthe said...

BD Ross: Same question: how does verbal aggression fit in with the NonAggression Principle?

Try to be interesting, please. So far, you aren't.

bdross said...

Can't have a one-sided discussion. Post my comment and we can talk about the NAP.

susanthe said...

What makes you think we're having a discussion, Brandon? I asked a question. Answer up, or sod off.

You're failing badly at being interesting.

Bob Robertson said...

You're not sorry, Susan, and saying so is a lie.

Your hatred of Freedom of Speech is clear, since you only support it when you agree with what is being said.

And really, this is your blog. How can it NOT be about you?

Coward. Can't even let your readers decide if what I sad was on topic or not, you have to tell everyone it wasn't so deleting it seems justified.

And the real hypocrisy is that this is YOUR blog, where YOU get to choose what is seen and not seen, yet you hate private property rights and those who espouse them.

What a sad, sick person you are.

susanthe said...

When I exercise my right to run my blog as I see fit, I'm oppressing the poor white men of the FSP. And as we all know, no group is more vigorously self pitying that the poor oppressed white man. Bob Robertson of the Free State Project has just dropped by to illustrate this for us:

And the real hypocrisy is that this is YOUR blog, where YOU get to choose what is seen and not seen, yet you hate private property rights and those who espouse them.

Yes, Bob. My blog, I get to decide. I'm awfully sad that this hurts your poor tender feelings. Can I fetch you a hankie?

I just didn't realize, when I saw you in jackboots in front of the State House with a band of gun thugs, yelling at old women that you were such a frail, sensitive, magnolia blossom. I guess you're just deeply misunderstood.

Anonymous said...

But the FSP President didn't "initiate" verbal aggression. She was "defending" claims that the organization are domestic terrorists. Instead of "wiki", maybe you should educate yourself on the subject a little more. I recommend trying books, or speaking to FSP participants.

susanthe said...

Sorry most recent anonymous. You failed to answer the question. You don't get to justify Carla's antics. That isn't an answer to the current question. The question is:

How does verbal aggression (which Free Staters use all the time) square up with the Non Aggression Principle?

susanthe said...

Is condescending and patronizing a form of verbal aggression?

The most recent anony-mouse patronizingly tells me to do some research. It would never occur to the mouse that I already have. That I've in fact, spoken to non-FSP libertarians about the NAP. The Free Staters are amazingly condescending. In their small, propaganda filled minds, anyone who actually DID do research would immediately join them. They can't fathom the possibility that someone might do considerable research and make the determination that it's a big bunch of silly.

susanthe said...

I'm feeling bad for you, bdross. I asked a libertarian not affiliated with NH in any way the same question, and he answered at length. It's a shame you can't, but it's certainly no surprise.

susanthe said...

Here's a hint, bdross - if your goal is to get a comment published, fifth grade playground insults aren't moving you closer to victory.

I do find it amusing that you're so willing to dictate all the terms to me on my blog, spanky. That you think I'm going to let you is even funnier.

bdross said...

Eh. You're more of an amusement to "us", truth be told.

susanthe said...

That's a snappy comeback, Brandon!

One day you Free Staters will receive proper acclaim for your collective rapier like wit.