Like I mentioned in another response, saying everyone has a right to non-aggression is a cumbersome and inarticulate way of saying everyone has a right not to have their consent violated. They essentially amount to the same thing; non-aggression speaks specifically to trespasses against persons and property, correct?
The point I'm driving at is: why do you have a right to non-aggression? The reason I don't like using non-aggression, or not to have aggression initiated against you, is because it is derived from a more fundamental right. When examined, it provides the context for why that right is not, in fact, absolute, and with good reason.
you only have the rights you are conceived with. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one way of defining three of them.
if some deprives or you of that they are violating your rights.
If you retaliate to preserve your rights you have done no wrong.
Again, why do you have those rights? Put another way, where do those rights come from? They're all derived from a more fundamental right. I agree with you that you have those three rights, but those are simply the three basic forms of a more general right, one that underscores all of them. It's the same one that underscores the right to non-aggression, which is a generalized way of referring to those three specific rights.
Why is never irrelevant, but you're missing my point. I'm not claiming you don't have them at conception. The point I'm making is that they are specific instances of a more general right: the right to not have your consent violated. This is crucial in understanding why rights are reciprocal vis-a-vis the person who's rights are violated.
Aggression is not exclusively the initiation of force. Aggression can also simply be hostile behavior, which is one reason why I don't think it's as strong as it should be for a first principle. Sticking with that definition, though, is it wrong to come to the defense of someone else? Even if you weren't the target of the aggression?
Is the "hostile behavior" a credible threat to initiate force? If so, it is aggression. Otherwise it isn't.
No, it isn't wrong to come to someone else's defense, since that is still defense. If they have a right to do it, you have a right to do it on their behalf.
Alright, but why? That's the problem with presupposing non-aggression as a right. You're not incorrect, but without understanding the reason behind it, you're vulnerable to coming to incorrect conclusions.
By definition. Why does water (generally, adjusting for purity and air pressure, etc.) freeze at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C? That's just how it is. You can argue and question, but that's not going to change it.
Incorrect. It can be justified and reasoned logically. It derives from an a priori truth, so in that sense you're partially correct, but non-aggression itself isn't a priori true. That's the point I'm getting at. It arises from a more fundamental right, which, when properly understood, reveals that this right, from which the right to non-aggression arises, is reciprocal. This is the why that justifies self-defense.
"non-aggression itself isn't a priori true"
Meaningless. "Non-aggression" (and Zero Archation) is the best way to attempt to live among others so far discovered. That doesn't mean it is "true", or that it isn't based on something more basic. The alternatives have been tried, and anyone who bothers to observe can see where they lead. The results are true. The principles are true, as far as they work and the alternatives lead to ruin for our species.
You can behave as though rights (not specifically "non-aggression") are reciprocal, but that is still treating rights as though they are privileges, granted or withdrawn on a whim by someone who believes they have that "authority". I still recognize that murderers have rights, even though their rights don't negate their debts.
The key concept is "thou shalt not initiate'... Retaliation is just fine.
Like I mentioned in another response, saying everyone has a right to non-aggression is a cumbersome and inarticulate way of saying everyone has a right not to have their consent violated. They essentially amount to the same thing; non-aggression speaks specifically to trespasses against persons and property, correct?
I think the term non-aggression is misleading. Rather say do not initiate aggression.
The point I'm driving at is: why do you have a right to non-aggression? The reason I don't like using non-aggression, or not to have aggression initiated against you, is because it is derived from a more fundamental right. When examined, it provides the context for why that right is not, in fact, absolute, and with good reason.
you only have the rights you are conceived with.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one way of defining three of them.
if some deprives or you of that they are violating your rights.
If you retaliate to preserve your rights you have done no wrong.
Again, why do you have those rights? Put another way, where do those rights come from? They're all derived from a more fundamental right. I agree with you that you have those three rights, but those are simply the three basic forms of a more general right, one that underscores all of them. It's the same one that underscores the right to non-aggression, which is a generalized way of referring to those three specific rights.
why is irrelevant.
you have them at conception.
that is sufficient.
Why is never irrelevant, but you're missing my point. I'm not claiming you don't have them at conception. The point I'm making is that they are specific instances of a more general right: the right to not have your consent violated. This is crucial in understanding why rights are reciprocal vis-a-vis the person who's rights are violated.
Because aggression is the initiation of force. Once someone else has initiated force ("started it"), then your response isn't an initiation.
Aggression is not exclusively the initiation of force. Aggression can also simply be hostile behavior, which is one reason why I don't think it's as strong as it should be for a first principle. Sticking with that definition, though, is it wrong to come to the defense of someone else? Even if you weren't the target of the aggression?
Is the "hostile behavior" a credible threat to initiate force? If so, it is aggression. Otherwise it isn't.
No, it isn't wrong to come to someone else's defense, since that is still defense. If they have a right to do it, you have a right to do it on their behalf.
Alright, but why? That's the problem with presupposing non-aggression as a right. You're not incorrect, but without understanding the reason behind it, you're vulnerable to coming to incorrect conclusions.
By definition. Why does water (generally, adjusting for purity and air pressure, etc.) freeze at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C? That's just how it is. You can argue and question, but that's not going to change it.
Incorrect. It can be justified and reasoned logically. It derives from an a priori truth, so in that sense you're partially correct, but non-aggression itself isn't a priori true. That's the point I'm getting at. It arises from a more fundamental right, which, when properly understood, reveals that this right, from which the right to non-aggression arises, is reciprocal. This is the why that justifies self-defense.
"non-aggression itself isn't a priori true"
Meaningless. "Non-aggression" (and Zero Archation) is the best way to attempt to live among others so far discovered. That doesn't mean it is "true", or that it isn't based on something more basic. The alternatives have been tried, and anyone who bothers to observe can see where they lead. The results are true. The principles are true, as far as they work and the alternatives lead to ruin for our species.
You can behave as though rights (not specifically "non-aggression") are reciprocal, but that is still treating rights as though they are privileges, granted or withdrawn on a whim by someone who believes they have that "authority". I still recognize that murderers have rights, even though their rights don't negate their debts.