[Fraqtive42]

I'm specifically referring to the Non-Aggression Principle as proposed by Hans-Herman Hoppe, i.e. Argumentation Ethics.

Here is the scenario:

Moral Agent A says to Agent B (without initiating any force) that if B does not give him a particular possession, then A will hit B with a crow bar.

Is this action morally permissible according to Argumentation Ethics, as long as A never initiates force against B or his property? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

[Daktoria]

No... that's a threat.

[Fraqtive42]

But why aren't threats morally permissible under Argumentation Ethics (I know I sound trivial when asking this, sorry for that)?

[Daktoria]

1) Intimidation.

2) Dishonesty.

3) Negligence.

[Writ_Large]

Why aren't threats morally permissible under Argumentation Ethics?

Because, aggression is defined as non-consensual use of another individual's property. Consent doesn't exist when an individual is threatened with force by another. "Consent" is only a meaningful concept so long as it precludes threats- if it didn't, then all actions would be have to be considered consensual, and aggression couldn't exist.

Full disclaimer: I am not entirely sold on this justification for the NAP.

[Eran]

I agree with Writ_Large. However, this isn't a justification for NAP.

Argumentation Ethics attempts to demonstrate, I now believe, that NAP (together with Rothbardian property right theory) is the only justifiable theory of justice (where justice is the normative theory of enforceable rights, not to be confused with ethics, which is the normative theory of all human action).

There are many alternative theories of justice, but they cannot be justified.

It cannot be "proved" that we ought to adopt only justifiable normative theories, though justifiability is an attractive property of the theory.

[Writ_Large]

It cannot be "proved" that we ought to adopt only justifiable normative theories, though justifiability is an attractive property of the theory.

Did you just read Theory of Socialism and Capitalism? Really, though, argumentation ethics is not a good justification for the NAP.

[Eran]

I did read Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. I think argumentation ethics is a useful tool for saying something important about Rothbardian justice in contrast with any alternative form of justice.

However, Hoppe is going too far. The argument can be used to show that Rothbardian Justice is the only internally-consistent form of peacefully resolving inter-personal disputes while maintaining universalizability.

The argument fails against those who essentially say "I don't care about universalizability or consistency".

[Fraqtive42]

I see what you guys mean. My confusion arose out of the actual definition of "consent", and whether it is lost when a threat is issued. But what constitutes a "threat", in accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle? Must it be explicit, or does an implicit threat still violate the rights of others?

[Eran]

At some point, this becomes a question that can only be answered in the context of specific circumstances.

Broadly, the threat has to be credible and severe enough to alter the behaviour of the threatened party.

Importantly, and to avoid confusion, the threat must be of (property) right violation, as opposed to the "threat" of doing something one already has a right to do.