And there is the rub. In your view and usage, a policy position is out of bounds if it is inspired by religion. The same position inspired by some secular view is ok. That is offensive to any spirit of the 1st amendment. It also fails to acknowledge that many good public policies are incorporated into religious beliefs (or that many religious beliefs became public policy) precisely because long history teaches us that such policies are good for the society.
That's
not what I said. Considering the rest of my post, you'll agree that I draw the line on issues of "morality" not implied by the NAP, irrespective of their basis in religion. I know at least one subscriber to the NAP who believes that the teachings of Jesus require this of him. So when he argues for NAP-based legislation, he's arguing to "legislate his religion". I'm fine with that, because (as it happens) the standards he would impose are, to me, satisfactorily universal and, more importantly, non-aggressive.
In fact, he could believe that his religion requires these things of him for reasons having nothing to do with the NAP, and I'd be fine with that too so long as he didn't propose legislation which was, itself, aggressive.
By the same token I'm
not ok with an atheist proposing aggressive legislation (say, restricting religious practice) simply because its inspiration is ultimately secular.
One might argue that sex between consenting adults is a strictly private matter. And that is fine, until we have 75% unwed pregnancy and birth rates with attendant poverty and criminality. Or until the emotional bonds that sex tends to form between non-sociopaths, cause people to make poor decisions in their positions of trust in government or business.
These are utilitarian arguments. Generally, I argue that "the means are the ends", and so utilitarianism is inherently moot. However,
from a utilitarian perspective there is meager evidence, at best, that the aggressive power of the state is generally the optimific means of maximizing such ends as wed pregnancy, non-sociopathy, or whatever your social agenda of the week might be.
That is to say, I'm supremely confident that these outcomes can be improved using incentive structures compatible with
right (and the NAP), as opposed to the unsophisticated, indirect cudgel of aggressive law and concomitant punishment.
This is reflected further in your discussion if hooligans in the park, where all you can see in response is force, and yet I can envision dozens of ways to maximize everyone's enjoyment of the park without relying on prohibitory law.
Caste by birth is a little troubling. But why not have a caste by abilities? Well, because our social moral code says that every human life should be treated equally before the law. It is a moral code that is not universal, but works well here.
That's a good point, but not a wholly novel one, of course. It's still ultimately an appeal to moral relativism, but with a more thought-provoking context than one usually encounters.
The answer, as usual, goes like this: the universal basis (in our biology as a social species, by my reckoning) of morality only
inspires the NAP. It is proper that it be expanded and made consistent through the use of reason.
The fact that many societies maintain practices (which might be described as "pre-enlightenment") which are incompatible with NAP doesn't ultimately disprove a universal basis. It merely suggests that those societies maintain internal inconsistencies (hey, nobody's perfect). I suspect that you could, starting from an assumed universal moral basis, easily talk most members of caste societies into acknowledging these inconsistencies, if only inadvertently. Also, I should point out NAP requires a caste-free society.
I hope we don't have to abandon this tenant of our justice system simply because so many in our society have religious inspiration for believing and enforcing it.
Certainly not, but I assume you'll agree I'm repeating myself by now.
The problem with the non-aggression principle is trying to define what is or is not aggression. Is it only physical aggression? Or do my emotions, sensibilities, and morality get any consideration at all?
Aggression is an initiatory violation of rights. Perhaps I can respond to this best with the same response I give to those who argue that OC infringes on their "right to feel safe".
You have a
right to not feel safe, but you do not have a right to force others to engage in behavior which makes you feel more safe. On the other hand, others have no right to engage in behavior which negligently or recklessly endangers you.
I'd point out that the application of "aggression" to these things is no more difficult than the application of
right, and yet you continue to ascribe to the principle of
rights.
Three consenting adults shooting heroin and having sex in full public view on bench in the public park does not inflict any tangible harm on me. They have as much right to use the park as I do. I can look away. I might try some peaceful social scorn. Is their conduct really "aggressive" or merely offensive because of my prudish religious and social views?
If I want to eat dog for dinner, do my neighbors or the larger community have any reason to prevent me from skinning my dog alive on the front porch for every child in the neighborhood to see? A dog is property. What tangible harm do I inflict on any other man's rights if I torture my dog, skin it alive in full public view, and then roll out the bar-b-que?
This is now fully tangential, but I've argued in the past that animals do indeed have natural rights (which, as it happens, would include a right to not be tortured), but that those rights are not as extensive as those of people, for a number of reasons, and exclude any "right to not be eaten" or to not be owned, etc.
But we can do that another day, perhaps.
But very few persons want to live in a society where the law is powerless to prevent or punish the conduct I've just described.
Folks are quite happy to impose their standards on others, yet strangely seem rather less keen on having others' standards imposed on them.
Also: I noted you were quite comfortable appealing to your "feelz" earlier. When you make these sorts of appeals to popularity (will of the majority, really), you are aware, I assume, that in doing so you render absolutely irrelevant the "feelz" of political minorities like myself, who might feel that (for instance) the prohibition of public fornication is far more offensive than the act itself.
Bad conduct drives out good. Short of some degree of force, some folks cannot be prevented from shooting up, stripping down, and getting busy in the park, in a playground, on the subway, etc.
And once grossly offensive conduct is permitted, decent people have little choice but to withdraw. While they have the same right to use public space, the public space has become unusable for them.
It simply doesn't follow. Do you believe the mere non-prohibition of "grossly offensive conduct" ensures its ubiquity? By what mechanism?
Also, it seems to me there's a bit of irony here. I'm sure you see things you find offensive, but as a conservative, society is more closely tailored to you than it is to anybody else. Indeed, there
are laws against the hypotheticals your propose.
On the other hand, as something of a social radical I routinely encounter behavior which I deem "grossly offensive" but which government is unlikely to prohibit. This doesn't force me to live as a hermit. Indeed, I do exactly what you suggested earlier: ignore the things I see which are every bit as offensive to me as two people fornicating in public
Is second hand smoke a real aggression to me? In an office building or airplane? What about wafting over the fence from my neighbor's back yard?
That depends. As I discuss below, it's not the specific answer which is so valuable (we may be imagining different quantities of smoke), but the process by which we attempt to discern that answer.
At what point does my music from my party move from being a mere annoyance to my neighbors to being an infringement of their rights? Must they build soundproof homes if they expect some reasonable limits on noise levels at 2 am?
It's not difficult to argue that the common law standard of "quiet enjoyment" of one's property is compatible with NAP.
I do have a right to experience as much relative loudness as I please. I do not have a right to impose this on you. I may have to invest in headphones or sound dampening materials to avoid crossing the boundary from my right to yours.
As we've discussed recently, do HOAs represent private contracting between willing parties, or some kind of "fraud" (your word) because the contracts attach to property?
The fraud doesn't arise from the attachment to property per se, but rather the intentionally misleading misuse of terms.
Simply put, the non-aggression principle appears at first glance to be a wonderful, secular, rational moral code to which nobody should take any exception. But in practice, all it does is move the discussion back a step to trying to argue about what is or isn't "aggression" (or fraud for those who are able to define that word very, very broadly). And now the discussion becomes strained because of the need to talk only about "aggression" rather than what makes a decent, livable community, or how do we properly respect rights.
That's obviously true, but these sorts of semantic difficulties are inherent to any sort of "standard" which is shared (using language) with others. Even direct revelations from God are subject to interpretation, at least in the event that God wishes you to share those with others.
The consistency of NAP derives not from the fact that the answer is always plain, but from the fact that there is a clear procedure to follow. Aggression is, indeed, often difficult to isolate. More specifically, the moment of initiatory coercion or force may not be easy to pinpoint.
But you and I don't have to agree on the
exact conception of aggression in every instance to derive value from the process. If we can empathize with the other's desire to, essentially, not be trampled on, and we can agree to use reason to decide the best way not to trample on each other, we're a whole lot more likely to come to a harmonious agreement than if we both declare that we're right because our God or our feelz (or whatever) made it so.
It's not the ends which are universal and consistent, it's the means. But since ideal means lead to optimal ends, this is acceptable.
