Talk:Non-aggression principle

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

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)

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)

RfC on main definition of the NAP

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)

---

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

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, is inherently wrong. It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism and minarchism. In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense. 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. 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". It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism and minarchism.

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

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)
• 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)

  @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)

  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, 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)

  You might as well include both proposed versions of the lead in their entirety. AP295 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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, is inherently wrong. It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism and minarchism. In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense. 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. 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". It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism and minarchism.

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

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)

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)

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)

• Non-neutral RfC AP295 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• 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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

• Without taking a position specifically on the question ehre: (1) I agree with BeŻet that AP295's arguments leading up to the RfC range from poor to ridiculous, and (2) AP295 has been indefinitely blocked. --JBL (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Since AP295 has been blocked, this can probably be closed or withdrawn, but to simplify consensus, A is much clearer and more neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

References