Talk:Non-aggression principle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stating NAP is right-libertarian does not tell anyone what it is.

I rewrote the article to match the previous edit, which first describes what the NAP is in the opening paragraph. It is not informative for a layperson wanting to know what the NAP is to read a discussion that describes the NAP as something that is associated with right-libertarians (or any-libertarians). That type of discussion is for somewhere within the article.I Use Dial (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The non-aggression principle defines aggression in right-libertarian terms. Non-aggression literally means "non-violation of right-libertarian rules", and so mentioning right-libertarianism in the opening paragraph is not only accurate, it is dishonest to neglect to do so. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You present this as fact without adequate sourcing.I Use Dial (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the content of the article explains this clearly and provides sources. This is not a contentious point: Libertarians define aggression as violation of libertarian property rights. Please stop reverting these edits. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not address my very first concern, which is to inform a user what the NAP is. No quantity of sources can address this. The fact that you use weasel words in your article tells everything anyone needs to know. You don't care that someone comes to the page and learns what the NAP is. You want them to read that the NAP is associated with some group, and who cares what it is.I Use Dial (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article as it stands is very misleading, and my edits are an attempt to clear that up. The NAP is a right-libertarian specific concept (it isn't used by any other group) and defines aggression in right-libertarian terms (for instance, non-libertarians don't regard tax collecting as "aggression"). My edits make that clear. Can you let me know if you object to these two points (which seem to me to be fairly non-controversial) and if so, why?

The other problem my edits address is the inclusion of quotes that aren't related to the NAP, and merely refer to general notions of freedom. Do you object to these being removed? If so, why?

Generally, it would be more constructive if you would simply build on/modify my changes rather than reverting all of them. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is not misleading. I Use Dial (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article does not belong to you. Other editors are not here to kindly build on or modify as pleases you. I Use Dial (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't belong to you either. You're here to contribute constructively, not act as gatekeeper and simply reject all changes that you don't like. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article on the principle of non-aggression at the Mises Wiki of the Ludwig von Mises Institute does not mention the term "right-libertarian(ism)", and it features a list of historical precedents that is even longer than the list in this Wikipedia article that User:TheRealRocknRolla has been (wrongly, in my opinion) trying to delete.

For a considerably broader, but still libertarian, definition of the NAP see, for example:

Liberty and the non-aggression principle mean not imposing one doctrine of values or motivations on peoples and cultures with unique circumstances and opposing doctrines; imposition is not the same as communication; change can be voluntary and brought about through reasoned argumentation.

— Mendenhall, Allen (2014). "Introduction: the basis for liberty". Literature and liberty: essays in libertarian literary criticism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. p. 10. ISBN 9780739186336. OCLC 862589369. For Allen Mendenhall's libertarian credentials see, for example, his bio at the Mises Institute

Another problem with User:TheRealRocknRolla's edit that is being discussed here, in addition to the more serious problems already mentioned above, is that the edit wrongly removes important synonyms in boldface from the lead sentence that should remain because those terms redirect to this article: non-aggression axiom, non-coercion principle, zero aggression principle, and non-initiation of force. Biogeographist (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a right-libertarian organisation! That page itself notes that the NAP is defined in right-libertarian terms, such as prohibiting taxation ("When applied to the state, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation.."). The fact that the current article is mostly a direct copy-and-paste from this one source is problematic and constitutes both plagiarism and violation of NPOV. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You've mentioned two libertarian sources and no others, which seems like agreement from you that the NAP is right-libertarian specific. You've quoted two definitions of the NAP, both of which define aggression in right-libertarian terms, which seems like agreement from you that the NAP defines aggression in right-libertarian terms. Yes? TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That is solved by simply modifying my edits, not rejecting them wholesale. TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheRealRocknRolla: I have moved your response, which was interspersed with my text, after my signature. You should not break up another editor's text on a talk page with your own text; you should place your response after the last entry in the discussion, per WP:TP, so that each block of text is signed and it is clear who wrote each block of text in temporal order. If you feel a need to quote another editor's text, you can use Template:Talkquote.

You were wrong to tag this article with Template:Copypaste (in this edit) and to claim that this Wikipedia article copied from the article at Mises Wiki. In fact, Mises Wiki copied from Wikipedia, as can clearly be seen by comparing the article histories of each article. The article on the Mises Wiki (which is just an older version of this Wikipedia article) presents multiple perspectives on the NAP; it does not make the mistake of simply calling the NAP "right-libertarian" and thereby eliding or conflating different perspectives.

If your edit were largely an improvement over the existing article, then other editors would accept your edit and correct any minor errors, rather than revert. But that is not the case here: Your edit was considerably worse than what it replaced. Perhaps you should explain in detail here on the talk page what your agenda is—i.e., describe in detail your overall purpose in attempting to edit this article—and somebody can help you craft a high-quality edit that will be acceptable to other editors, and that doesn't merely blank important content and doesn't replace substantive description with the vague label of "right-libertarian(ism)". Biogeographist (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is not clear in what I have just written, let me be clear about what my agenda would be if I were substantively editing this article. (I say "if I were" substantively editing this article because I have barely made any substantial contributions.) I would do a scholarly survey of the widest possible variety of literature that mentions the NAP (and any of its variations—see, for example, my quote of Allen Mendenhall above), and I would make sure that all possible perspectives and interpretations are included in this article. In other words, my agenda would be to increase the quantity of perspectives on the NAP represented in this article, in accord with an inclusively neutral point of view. Simply labeling the NAP as "right-libertarian" does not do justice to the nuanced panoply of well-sourced perspectives on the NAP that should be represented in this article per the Wikipedia core content policy of neutral point of view, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Emphasis added.) Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the comment ordering, fairly new to this! Sorry for the mistake with the copy-paste labelling too, I assumed that the content had come from a libertarian site. However, that does get to the heart of the main issue with this article: It has been written from a libertarian point of view, and not from an objective, external perspective.

Take this line for instance: ""Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property." This isn't correct: Right-libertarians consider taxation to be aggression. But in a society that isn't right-libertarian, your tax liability doesn't belong to you, so isn't "an individual's property" in the first place.

They consider the right to demand property rents legitimate, even though they require equal aggression to taxation in terms of coercing payment. Property enforcement itself requires "forceful interference with an individual" (eg handcuffing the individual and taking them to jail if they commit trespass law). And yet right-libertarians are strong supporters of property law.

To answer the question "is this aggression under the NAP?", you have to already know what right-libertarians believe in order to answer it. It's misleading to say anything else. This is the issue that I am addressing in my rewrites of the introduction. The current revision speaks to the reader as though they are already fully committed right-libertarians.

I'm happy to change my proposed intro to word it better: I see that repeated mention of "right-libertarian" seems like clunky phrasing. Perhaps "capitalist" would be better? TheRealRocknRolla (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheRealRocknRolla: Regarding the sentence in this article's lead: "'Aggression', for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property." This sentence is appropriately supported by a reliable source. You said above that this sentence "isn't correct", and as justification for your claim that the sentence isn't correct you point to some contradictions in some alleged "right-libertarian" arguments about taxation and rents. You may be correct to point out the contradictions in those arguments, but this article's lead does not actually make those arguments. How the NAP is derived and interpreted—i.e., how the principle is used within arguments to advocate for or against systems or policies—is explicated later in the article. So I don't agree with your conclusion that this article's lead currently "speaks to the reader as though they are already fully committed right-libertarians." Perhaps the lead could use a minor improvement, but defining the NAP as "a rhetorical concept espoused by right-libertarianism", as you did in your edit, is not an improvement.

In my view, for whatever it's worth, if there is a direction in which this article should be developing, that direction is not toward eliminating nuances and multiple perspectives by reducing the article's subject to a vague label such as "right-libertarianism" or "capitalism"—for a critique of the widespread problematic usage of the latter term see, for example: Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006) [1996]. The end of capitalism (as we knew it): a feminist critique of political economy (Reprint ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816648050. OCLC 61261295.

The article should instead be developing toward including a wider range of interpretations of the NAP. I'm reminded of an essay by McKenzie Wark:

If we let go of the oppositional thinking: state–bad/market–good (which of course opposes itself to imaginary opposite doctrines), then we can think about practices of forming heterogeneous institutional forms that have elements of these forms of organisation—and many others as well. None of which is terribly startling. A Humean libertarian philosophy would be practical, sceptical. It's not the only kind of libertarian thought one might want to see flourishing. Its not about opposing cyberlibertarian thought with a single alternative. There's yet another understanding of power, of desire, to be found, for example, in Spinoza. Liberty is a weed that grows in lots of places—perhaps everywhere.

— Wark, McKenzie (18 January 1997). "The liberty tree". Post to the Nettime mailing list. Retrieved 30 August 2017.

Ideally, this article would show (in an appropriately sourced, scholarly way, of course) how the NAP has been adopted and interpreted by different thinkers through space and time, like "a weed that grows in lots of places". Biogeographist (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This article conflates the non-aggression principle with the harm principle

The history section of this article conflates two different principles, the harm principle and the non-aggression principle. They are somewhat similar, but not the same. Some differences off the top of my head:

• The NAP is an ethical stance which lies at the foundation of 20th-century deontological libertarianism. John Stuart Mill's version of the harm principle is a consequentialist result of a utilitarian philosophy that places human utility at its foundation.
• Economic redistribution violates the NAP, but does not necessarily violate the harm principle—particularly if such redistribution increases overall human utility (e.g. a dollar provides more marginal utility to a poor person than to a rich person).
• In practice, the NAP prioritizes minimizing the powers of government, while the harm principle prioritizes maximizing the freedoms of citizens.
• The NAP places significant limits on foreign policy, but the harm principle does not.
• When pushed to their most extreme points, the NAP and the harm principle lead to different conclusions, primarily because the NAP is more restrictive than the harm principle.

--JHP (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

With all of your linked sources being Wikipedia articles and all of your claims being your own opinion statements, it is difficult to seriously consider anything you are claiming. Most notably, the NAP actually has nothing to do with government, and does not have anything specifically against government. The appearance of such is only due to the application of NAP not differentiating a government from any other entity, and that aspect of its application being the focus of many libertarians. I Use Dial (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to "Nanobliss"

I'm glad you're interested in making large contributions to this page. I think you've included some great stuff already. I do, however, believe that we should avoid including content without citations unless what we're saying it pretty broad/obvious. For example, I don't think we need citations for "some libertarians support the state" or "some libertarians support taxes because of the free-rider problem" or "Geolibertarians support taxation on land" etc. The more specific it is, the more uneasy I become, because I think it's more likely that it's OR. Please include more citations with your new content. Thanks! Byelf2007 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lil Jon?

I mean, yeah, "Don't start no shit won't be no shit" is fairly in line with the NAP; however I question whether it adds anything of value to the article. The main reason I find this somewhat objectionable is that the quotation is a drastic departure in tone from the rest of the article. This isn't some attack on rap or even cursing, just that it does not seem to fit in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.24 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Axiom vs. Principle

Because "principle" is the main article name and "axiom" is a redirect, and also because it seems that "principle" is slightly more common in libertarian discourse, I re-wrote things to use "principle" rather than "axiom" (Now Rothbard preferred "axiom" which is why that's used in the anarcho-capitalism article) I don't have a personal prefrence, so if someone prefers "axiom" feel free to edit, just be consistent and change all the instances (without changing qutations, that is :) and note the change here so future editors know what's the preferred formulation for this article. Saswann 12:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't care a pap for it. Only in the logical/ethical discussion it is important, since it is an axiom. --Alfrem 13:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

? Are you saying you don't care what term is used in the article? Or are you saying you prefer "axiom"? 66.94.94.154 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "axiom" in the situation as above. The name of the article doesn't make any difference to me. --Alfrem 14:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The libertarians I've encountered use the two terms interchangeably. But "principle" seems more popular, if for no other reason than it lends itself toward a niftier acronym. --Matt Apple 21:05, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

Non Aggression Principles Theory As Currently Applied Is An Oxymoron

By definition , illegitimate aggression is violence , where self defence against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression , which precludes that not all aggression is illegitimate . Whereby , a common understanding and consistent application of the term aggression directs that pacifism , or no aggression , even in response to illegitimate aggression , is a correct understanding of non aggression . Thus , a non aggression principles lexicon as currently applied is an oxymoron .

Clearly , non violence principles more succinctly defines the intent of non aggression theorists , who were obviously taking a figurative nap while developing the theory in the context applying correct diction .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence The term "nonviolence" is often linked with peace or it is used as a synonym for it, and despite the fact that it is frequently equated with passivity and pacifism, this equation is rejected by nonviolent advocates and activists.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/does-non-violence-principles-correct-non-aggression-principles-lexicon.754609/ ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeMiJa (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

NAP

How well regarded is the NAP among mainstream philosophers? Benjamin (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Maintstream is a bit of a weasel word, but if you are talking about popular personalities whose jobs are dependent on funds originating from involuntary transactions, I suspect they do not like the NAP. Also, Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums. I Use Dial (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, mainstream is not a weasel word and is used to distinguish mainstream views from fringe ones as defined by Wikipedia:Fringe. Your comment that "if you are talking about popular personalities whose jobs are dependent on funds originating from involuntary transactions" shows a bias in favour of the concept. As far as I know, it is not a mainstream topic and it is really only held by American libertarians or right-libertarians. Other left-libertarians may held to something similar but it is more about the harm principle or the golden rule whereas the NAP is specifically linked to property, which not all types of libertarians, especially non-American libertarians, favour. Davide King (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Non aggressive principal

This seems like a critique rather than a definition again exposing wikis inability to be just or fair. Gdod25 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gdod25 I agree. This one is quite the doozy, I'll have more to say about it at some point. AP295 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Thomas Jefferson on List Misleading

Thomas Jefferson supported forcible imposition of taxes for various collective purposes. Property taxes by states, and import taxes by the federal government. He also supported:

taxpayer financed public education (A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge)

restrictions against monopolies (Letter of December 20th, 1787)

imposition of government embargoes (Embargo Act, Non-Intercourse Act, Enforcement Act)

anti-miscegenation laws

taxpayer financed national expansion (Louisiana Purchase)

the use of tax policy to diminish the odious effects of inequality, specifically by taxing very wealthy property owners more "in geometrical progression" than less wealthy property owners (Letter of October 28th, 1785)

So when the article states "a number of authors created their own formulation of the non-aggression principle," followed by out of context Jefferson quotes that superficially sound similar the NAP articulated at the top of the page, it falsely suggests that Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with that formulation, descended from Ayn Rand's. Yet I've found no evidence Mr. Jefferson ever even read an Ayn Rand novel.

New here, so won't make any changes right now. But I suggest either that Thomas Jefferson's name be removed from the list of authors who formulated "the" non-aggression principle. Or that the article be clarified to indicate that Thomas Jefferson had a different conception of "aggression" against a person's property than lawful imposition of government taxes for legitimate collective purposes like educating the poor and reducing wealth inequality.

"Silence gives consent," so if I don't hear any opposition to my proposed changes in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and make them myself. If I do hear opposition, I might just go crazy with a baked potato.

Bug1333 (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's definition is by far the most legitimate of them all. Taxation per se is not incompatible with the NAP. Thomas Jefferson was a great man and a far better president than we've had in any recent decade. AP295 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NAP and right-libertarianism

The concept of NAP is unique to right-libertarianism. @I Use Dial: - you are reverting a long-standing version of the article. The sentence is a WP:BLUESKY synthesis - we list right-libertarian ideologies that believe in this concept, and summarize that in the first sentence. What's controversial about it? It's just a summary of what is being said. BeŻet (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't care how long it was in the article. It is wrong. At this time, I'm not going to fix the entire article because it contains a considerable amount of epistemological issues, not the least of which is the incredible weakness in something called "right-libertarianism" - a phrase I had not encountered in reading various books and papers until Wikipedia decided this is some overriding system of thought within libertarianism. I am, however, going to stick to requiring the first paragraph have an explicit citation that includes at least a direct quote of a sentence from the cited source stating NAP is a part of whatever it is you consider right-libertarianism to be. I Use Dial (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@I Use Dial: I don't care what YouTube videos you have watched and what "reading" you have performed, right-libertarianism is a common phrase used to distinguish original libertarianism from the right-wing version of it, after the term has been co-opted by the Right in the 20th century in the United States. Not sure what sources you require if they are all there, stating that minarchists and anarchocapitalists believe in the NAP, and that it is the defining feature of libertarianism in the United States. The NAP does not exist in left libertarianism or frankly any other ideologies. BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a source stating explicitly that the NAP is right-libertarian.
Please leave your insults out of Wikipedia. They aren't helping anyone. I Use Dial (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As explained in the article about right-libertarianism, libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as libertarians. Being the most common type of libertarianism in the United States, right-libertarianism has become the most common referent of libertarianism - since the NAP is mainly discussed by American libertarians, most sources discuss it in terms of just "libertarianism". Regardless, sources that talk about the NAP in the context of right-libertarianism:

• Billy Christmas - Libertarianism and Privilege
• Patrik Hermansson et al. - The International Alt-Right: Fascism for the 21st Century?, Chapter 5

etc.. This seems completely uncontroversial to me but I'd welcome a third opinion before applying the change. BeŻet (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@BeŻet See my comment below. Calling "non-aggression" a "libertarian", "ancap", or "right-libertarian" belief adds nothing to this article and attaches a lot of very specific connotations to a very general concept/philosophy. The "alt-right" is political astroturfing at its finest, so I have doubts about the credibility of your sources. Generally, I think editors should try to avoid this sort of rhetoric. AP295 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: ...but nobody apart from right-libertarians uses the concept of NAP. We can't tie it to the whole of libertarianism, because left-libertarians (i.e. the original libertarians) do not talk about the NAP, except in the United States where the whole concept of libertarianism has been co-opted by the right, and "left-libertarianism" just refers to the more socially-aware wing of that group. Do any Anarchists or Mutualists talk about the NAP? It's just the economic libertarians, because the NAP presupposes the existence of private property. BeŻet (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what "anarchists" or "mutualists" talk about, the concept of non-aggression is broad and not the exclusive domain of "right-libertarians", despite whatever political archetypes the media is trying to associate it with. Personally I suspect the reason NAP is often ignored by propagandists, pundits and ideologists is because any reasonable definition of "aggression"/"non-aggression" would not likely jibe with whatever they're trying to accomplish by promoting their position or ideology. AP295 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: The question is simple, who follows the NAP other than right-libertarians? It was invented by right-libertarians, and it's their domain. Which other groups associate themselves with the NAP? Anarchists don't, mutualists don't, do some liberals follow the NAP? If so, could we find some sources about that? BeŻet (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer is pretty simple too: Non-aggression is a feature of almost any moralistic outlook or philosophy. AP295 (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: ...but we are not simply talking about non-aggression, we are talking about a specific concept called the "Non-aggression Principle", which considers "one's private property" within the scope of aggression and allows retaliation. It contrasts itself with pacifism, which does not allow retaliation. If you want to talk about non-aggression in general, pacifism is where you should be looking, as it is a general opposition to violence and aggression. BeŻet (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe we are talking about non-aggression. The non-aggression principle is no more or less than the statement "aggression is unethical/immoral". Different definitions of "aggression" yield different interpretations of the NAP, such as the one you've described. The article asserts that the NAP "faces definitional issues", but it should be no easier or harder than defining "aggression", which is the real issue at hand. The NAP allows for defensive use of force, which is not "aggression", but a form of resistance to aggression. Do you not think that this principle, which most people arguably adhere to in some capacity, goes beyond "right-wing libertarianism"? The media works hard to impress upon us the perception of certain trends, associations, and systems of belief, which may or may not be based in reality. I don't think such narrative has any place on Wikipedia. AP295 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

And off the record, my belief is that non-aggression is the common denominator in most ideological systems that seem concerned with justice, ethics, or morality, with the differences being in how they define aggression and the exceptions they allow to suit their specific purposes. While I agree with several "libertarian" principles, the media distorts our view of "liberty" and what it really means. The NAP should not be written off as a fringe, ill-defined belief exclusive to "american right-wing libertarians". It should not be burdened with connotations that follow from being associated with that archetype or constrained to a specific and narrow definition of "aggression". However, that's exactly what this article does in its current state. AP295 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

First, saying that a defensive use of force is not "aggression" is simply your interpretation and belief, and a justification that can be used by any proponent of any ideology, for example revolutionary socialists and anarchists justifying their direct action like occupying and taking over factories, or reclaiming or occupying land as "resistance to aggression". This is clearly a specific ideological concept that isn't even compatible with pacifism, the broader version of non-aggression. Secondly, what matters here is what sources say and not what you believe. Sources identify the NAP as a concept that was born amongst American libertarians, and if you say it's more universal than that, show sources that show examples of the NAP being referenced by other ideologies (it's possible that some liberals use it, so we can try finding a source for that). If you can't show any sources, then this discussion is pointless. Finally, if you really want an article talking about non-aggression in general, then just start it, because like I said, the NAP is a specific libertarian concept; however, you might be just duplicating what the article on pacifism is saying. BeŻet (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. I realize my opinion isn't necessarily relevant, and that's why I said "off the record". I was only trying to offer my perspective on the matter, which we are allowed to do on talk pages by the way. The article insists upon a specific, narrow definition of "aggression" and this limits the context in which the NAP can be interpreted and discussed. Thomas Jefferson believed in the NAP but did not oppose the concepts of taxation or government. I do not think the government should be so small and weak that it cannot limit the influence and reach of private interests. Most sane people don't. So why force people to view the NAP through the lens of a contrived political archetype like "american right-wing libertarianism". Why promote the media's bastardized definition of "liberty"? There's no good reason for it. AP295 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

And this sort of "contextual restriction", for lack of a better term, is a particularly insidious method of soft censorship. It subtly changes how we communicate and how we discuss certain concepts and ideas, and may have very far-reaching effects on public dialog and our culture in general. AP295 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

But the reason that the "article insists upon a specific, narrow definition of aggression" is because the article is about the NAP, a libertarian invention. Once again, it does not discuss non-aggression in general. Jefferson never believed in the NAP - he never invoked the term. You might be thinking about the harm principle, which is broader. The NAP has a specific meaning, and that's why the article invokes a specific interpretation of aggression, because whenever it is invoked, it is always used in the context of that interpretation - it differentiates itself from similar concepts by bringing property into the equation. Broadening the meaning is original research. Let me repeat: if you want to talk about non-agression in a wider sense, start a new article if you have good sources to talk about it - but this article is about the NAP, and about what the sources say about the NAP. Do you have sources that talk about the NAP in a more broader sense? Please share. Otherwise, you can't really make any changes to the article without backing them up with sources - it's not censorship if there aren't any sources one censors... BeŻet (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"it's not censorship if there aren't any sources one censors" is about as reassuring as "it's not murder if there's no dead body". AP295 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

And really all I can do at this point is appeal to common sense, logic, and whatever sense of justice you possess. Do you really think I'm wrong here? AP295 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. Over here we write verifiable pieces of content, supported by verifiable sources. We don't write things based on "common sense" or personal judgement or feelings. If your view is obvious to the point of being common-sensical, surely you can find some sources to support your proposed changes? If you can't, then this discussion is pointless, because it doesn't matter if you convince me you're right or not, because my personal opinion doesn't matter here. BeŻet (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that the NAP be defined as the belief that "aggression is wrong", without attaching a specific and narrow definition of "aggression" to the NAP itself. Then if some group has a particular definition of "aggression", you can explain that as the basis for their interpretation of the NAP. If you disagree with my proposal, then who, in your mind, has the authority to interpret the NAP with respect to other definitions of "aggression"? AP295 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but what source would we use for that definition? All sources always seem to place the NAP within the context of libertarianism, and the term, according to sources, comes from American libertarian discource. I am not against this change, provided we have a good source for it - that's all I'm saying. Could you help us finding an appropriate source? BeŻet (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It hardly seems like a misinterpretation of existing sources to state the NAP as the idea that aggression is wrong, considering the alternative is contingent only upon a more specific (and arguably non-standard, per the Merriam-Webster online dictionary) definition of "aggression". AP295 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

But all sources go further than that when describing the NAP. To use your previous language, why should we "censor" that? Do you have a source which supports your point of view, or better, shows an example of invocing the NAP without talking about retaliation or private property? If you don't have a source, we will be just going in circles, because you're saying that we should ignore what the sources say and use a vague description instead... BeŻet (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And we can say that so-and-so defines aggression as [...] when we cite any particular source. The article alleges that the NAP has "definitional issues", but these are all resolved if the NAP is stated as "aggression is wrong". It's not that the NAP is hard to define, it's that different sources disagree on what they consider "aggression", and again, that's the actual question at hand. "Who is the aggressor?". AP295 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Asking "who is the aggressor?" or "does this constitute aggression?" is really the whole point of the NAP. It's a profound question. And one you're less likely to ask if you have this idea in your head that the principle of non-aggression is merely a fringe, ill-defined tenet of right-wing american libertarianism. But powerful people tend to be aggressive. That is why they don't want you to ask this question, and that's why they'd like to box it up in a container labeled "right-wing libertarianism". It's a linguistic trick. A simple and effective method to reduce the expressive power of your vocabulary. AP295 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We are going in circles. Like I said, if you have a source for a more general definition of the NAP, present it and make appropriate changes in the article. If you don't, there's nothing you can do. I'm stepping away from this discussion until there's a source we can discuss. BeŻet (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And I've explained that stating the NAP as the belief that "aggression is wrong" is no more a misinterpretation of existing sources than the current definition. Nearly the entire article is a strawman critique of the NAP and its "definitional issues". There's no problem with defining the NAP, none whatsoever, unless you insist on trying to reconcile various idiomatic, incompatible definitions where "aggression" is taken to mean something other than how it's commonly defined in the dictionary. It's a non-neutral article, and cointelpro types have a very easy job on Wikipedia if editors are not willing to have conversations like these and reason with one another. AP295 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: *Sigh* Please, have a look at the sources used for the definition:

• The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, page 357: The nonagression axiom is an ethical often appealed to as a basis for libertarian theory. The principle forbids "aggression", which is understood to be any and all forcible interference with any individual's person or property except in response to the initiation of similar forcible interference on the part of that individual
• Matt Zwolinski - The libertarian “Nonaggression Principle”, Abstract: (NAP) prohibits aggression against the persons or property of others

So once again, and I am really asking for this for the last time: if you disagree with these definitions, if you think a different definition is more apt, you have to present an alternative source. If you don't have one, go look for one. If you are not willing to present a source, and you just don't like it there's nothing you can do. This is a basic Wikipedia rule, not cointelpro. BeŻet (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Let's look at the meaning of this sentence: The principle forbids "aggression", which is understood to be any and all forcible interference with any individual's person or property except in response to the initiation of similar forcible interference on the part of that individual. The word "which" introduces a non-restrictive clause. They are saying that the NAP forbids aggression, not a specific form of aggression. AP295 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: They are literally defining what they mean by agression there, and specifying it relates to both the person or their property. Come on, how can it get clearer than that? BeŻet (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They define the NAP as a principle that forbids aggression, and then put forth a working definition for "aggression" using a non-restrictive clause. This doesn't constrain the NAP itself to their definition of aggression. I don't know how many more ways I can explain it. AP295 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: ...and I don't know how many times do I need to explain that since all the sources say that the aggression in the NAP is understood to be against a "person or their property", and there is absolutely no reason why we would need to ignore this unless there's some politically loaded goal you want to achieve. Since you are not showing any willingness to read and understand Wikipedia rules, or to present any sources to support your change, I am stepping away from this conversation until you respectfully do so. I have explained all that needs to be explained but you just simply don't like it. BeŻet (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what the statement in your source means. It means that aggression is understood to be any and all forcible interference with any individual's person or property except in response to the initiation of similar forcible interference on the part of that individual. Whether or not that's true is debatable, but the NAP is stated simply as a principle that forbids aggression. Do I really need to make this an RfC so someone else can explain to you the difference between "which" and "that", and restrictive/non-restrictive clauses? AP295 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@AP295: Yes, please do an RfC so this can be resolved. BeŻet (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

So let's recap. Stating the NAP simply as "a principle that forbids aggression",

• Reconciles the alleged "definitional issues" that the article belabors, which can be seen as resulting from different specific definitions of "aggression".
• Agrees with the source you provided.
• Is a more general and less idiomatic definition, and therefore preserves the expressive power of our language.
• Makes it easier to write the article from a more neutral POV.

So why exactly do you oppose this change? AP295 (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

...ignores what sources say, introduces original research. BeŻet (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But it doesn't. And I've explained to you exactly why it doesn't with great patience and in great detail. What more do you expect? You were perfectly willing to have a dialog until you ran out of rules to throw at me. Then you clam up after stringing me along this far, and undo all of my edits. How is any editor supposed to deal with obstructionist behavior like this? Making uncomplicated edits to improve articles with obvious NPOV and quality issues is a Sisyphean nightmare. AP295 (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Since I already have an active RfC going for a bigger problem, I'm going to try WP:3O AP295 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You are simply not stating what the sources are saying, you are including your own interpretation. If you have an active RfC, I can start one for this later today. BeŻet (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it's just the two of us, let's give WP:3O a shot first. AP295 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, let's wait then. BeŻet (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

@I Use Dial Correct. The article contrives an association between NAP and farcical political archetypes like ancap. It puts forward an incredibly narrow definition of a general concept, which is a disturbing and frequent trend I've observed on Wikipedia and mass media in general. Wikipedia puts on a "progressive" facade but in attempting to get involved here I've been swiftly disillusioned. Leave a comment on my talk page if you like. It would comfort me to know that at least a few decent people haven't been driven off. People with good intentions seem to have a rather ephemeral involvement with Wikipedia. AP295 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Having read both edits and this whole section, i have to tell you both that i dont see a huge difference. @AP295: is your concern that the current wording defines the NAP too narrowly? Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll also repeat what I said earlier: Nearly the entire article is a strawman critique of the NAP and its "definitional issues". There's no problem with defining the NAP, none whatsoever, unless you insist on trying to reconcile various idiomatic, incompatible definitions where "aggression" is taken to mean something other than how it's commonly defined in the dictionary. AP295 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: to me the difference is quite substantial. All sources say that the NAP forbids forceful intervention with one's person or property, with many also adding that the NAP allows retaliation. AP295 is proposing that we ignore this, and just simply state that "Non-agression principle is a principle that forbids aggression", which is trivialisation of the term and original research, because none of the sources define it as just that. In other words, the NAP is a specific term, and not just what those words mean when we put them together. Nobody really uses this term outside of libertarian circles, and those who use the term mean a specific thing. BeŻet (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The definition in the source you cited, "The principle forbids "aggression", which is understood to be any and all forcible interference with any individual's person or property except in response to the initiation of similar forcible interference on the part of that individual" states the NAP as a principle that forbids aggression, and then makes a general statement about the word "aggression" using a non-restrictive clause, introduced using the word "which". Even if this weren't the case, they do not have the authority to co-opt the phrase "Non-aggression principle" and re-define it to mean something other than the principle of non-aggression, and we need not presume they have such authority. To do so would reduce the expressive power of common English and attach a lot of unnecessary connotations to that phrase. It's propaganda, plain and simple. There's no reason to abide it. AP295 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And actually, it's worse than just propaganda. It's a debasement of the English language itself. If the pen is mightier than the sword, tyrants will certainly try to deprive us of both. AP295 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if we avoided strawman arguments and extreme exagerations in this discussion. We simply need to state what the sources are saying, and not what a particular editors wants them to say. All sources say that the NAP "prohibits aggression against the persons or property of others". BeŻet (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, and if anything here is a strawman, it is the article's characterization of the NAP. The statement of the NAP I proposed is not contrary to the "definition" in any of your sources. AP295 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And my statement of the NAP is not my own interpretation. It's a generalization that encompasses and reconciles several interpretations, which are otherwise incongruous. It's also equal to the statement that you sourced earlier, despite your insistence that it isn't. Once again, their use of a non-restrictive clause, introduced with the word "which", does not constrain their statement of the NAP to a specific interpretation. That's simply not how the English language works, and you don't need to pitch a fit about it. AP295 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting an RfC so that you explain to other editors why using a literal definition specified by sources is "worse than propaganda" and "debasement of the English language itself". BeŻet (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)