The below article was originally posted by Redditor Mr_Koroand it took the words right out of my mouth. In other words he says in wonderful words one of the many issues with the libertarian movement and its context-dropping/reality evading by ripping NIOFP from any context or possible lines of evidence. No infringement or plagiarism intended by posting it on this blog. This is purely for education reasons. Peace!
Abstract
In this post, I discuss what some Objectivists call the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (hereafter NIOFP) and its relation to its ostensible libertarian-counterpart, the Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter NAP). I presume the reader has some preliminary familiarity with Objectivism.
To begin with, I talk about its origin in the Objectivist literature as well as its validation.
Then, I move onto the origin of the NAP, and some of its validations.
Later, I discuss the aforementioned relation and contrast it with other views.
Finally, I recap and add some personal thoughts.
Quick Introduction
u/JamesShrugged said on a recent meme:
[The NIOFP and the NAP] are the same thing. “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of force.
This led me to think about it. On its surface, the issue seems to be purely semantic. I began thinking whether or not aggression necessarily specifies the initiation of force, and what are the implications of using either formulation. The following is the result of my thinking.
The Origin in the Literature and Validation
The NIOFP's earliest appearance is in Atlas Shrugged. In Galt's speech, Galt spends several paragraphs addressing physical force. In essence, he introduces the idea that no man may initiate the use of force against another, and notes the immorality of succumbing to physical force as forfeiting one's judgment. He finishes by relating the issue to the basis of ethics, stating, in effect, that reason is man's means of survival.
There are many other further discussions of physical force which you can find in the Lexicon.
The validation of the NIOFP is grounded in the Objectivist ethics. There are two fundamental elements to this foundation:
- The first element is the Metaphysical Element. Man, being the rational animal depends on reason to survive. His needs are not accounted for by instincts. The goods he consumes can only be created. In other words, in order to live, man must produce his values, and the only means to that end is thought.
- This leads to the second element, the Normative Element. A man, should he choose to live, and thus be rational, must create the values his existence requires. He cannot expect another to live solely for his sake, and create the values he needs for him. And so, taking by force the values another man has created is self-destructive.
Thus we can observe that the initiation of force is immoral. In order to maintain this position rationally, one must rely on its foundation.
The Origin of the Non-Aggression Principle
Locke was the first to originate the NAP, stating that
no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [1]
Many thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and others, maintained such positions thereafter. But to my knowledge, none have based it on the Objectivist foundation prior to Rand.
In fact, we can observe that some thinkers have based their support of the NAP on their support of equal individual rights. Their support of individual rights can be based on a theological basis, like Jefferson's view of rights as endowed by a Creator, or on a utilitarian basis, like Stuart Mill's view.
Interestingly, as previously mentioned, Rand bases the NIOFP on an ethical basis, and not on rights. Although there is a strong connection between the two, that is worth discussing.
The Relation: Equivalency or Contrast?
As we have seen, the NIOFP is necessarily a reference to the principle as Rand formulated it, and in the context of the Objectivist ethics. The principle specifies precisely what is its subject, by using the words "non-initiation of force." It maintains the proper context that validates it also.
Contrast this to the NAP. This principle can be said to be the result of God's edict that all of mankind was created equal; it can be said to be the result of the need for peace and order in society for the Common Good; it can also be said to be the result of the fact that man cannot truly know reality, and thus all action is amoral, so "live and let live".
The crux of the issue is the huge ambiguity in using the word "aggression".
The word "aggression" has two main senses:
- Unprovoked physical force.
And something we should keep in mind is the fact that the intended sense of words is derived from their context. We should also keep in mind the fact that, unless otherwise specified by the speaker, you cannot assign the NAP any context. Given these facts, one can only conclude that the NAP cannot, and should not be a primary in a given discussion.
Conclusion and Personal Thoughts
By now I have shown that the NAP is a context-less concept. In order to validly use it one must tag onto it a context. This weakness, I believe, invalidates the use of the term NAP on its own, and renders its use for the purpose of communication impractical.
Moreover, this leads me to think about how the use of the term NAP without a context is prevalent in the libertarian community and reveals the arbitrariness with which libertarians base their support of freedom. It also validates my concern for the term NIOFP, as it could be tainted by the irrationally used term NAP.