Bitcoins:

Mijn bitcoin adres is:

1FiehAQfLGfooASRsSXsQiz8eUfRy4J3Pv

Social Media:

Abonneer:

via RSS

Oudere Posts:

2018
November

Voorspoed

Thucydides anno 427 BC

Is er verschil tussen ideologie en religie?

De USA congres verkiezingen

De cirkel is rond

Wat is vanzelfsprekend?

Ideologieën worden extremer?

Oktober

Ideologieën moeten voortdurend bevestigd worden

The case against NAP

Kanker risico en biologisch eten

Nudge (duwtjes) theorie

Een nieuw woord: Polygenic factor

Cultuur en de man/vrouw scheiding

Stabiliteit van de samenleving

Half om half

Vertrouwen en de zaak Kavanaugh

Elke ideologie tendeert naar een globale staat

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto (deel 7)

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto (deel 6)

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto (deel 5)

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto (deel 4)

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto (deel 3)

September

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto (deel 2)

Boek review: The White Nationalist Manifesto

Drie politieke richtingen

Het komende einde van de democratie

Politiek: ideologie, deel 3

Politiek: ideologie, deel 2

IQ - een interresante theorie

Politiek: ideologie

Politiek: theorie

Libertarisme en ostracisme

Politiek: consequenties

Politiek: theorie

Blok eindigt politieke carriere?

Libertarisme en self-ownership (deel 5)

Libertarisme en het NAP (deel 4)

Augustus

Libertarisme en de schuld vraag (deel 3)

Geen libertarisme, maar wat dan? (deel 2)

De onmogelijkheid en onwenselijkheid van het libertarisme (deel 1)

Waarom mannen een iets hoger gemiddeld IQ hebben dan vrouwen

IQ verdeling en na-apen

Framing

Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Rationeel

Social media and feedback

Boek: Why We Sleep

Individualisme en Christendom

Individualisme en nihilisme

De efficiëntie van een groep

Muziek

De 50% problematiek

Juli

Het primaire probleem in de samenleving

Het cirkeltje is rond

Nieuwe r/K Theorie artikelen

Het minimumloon

Iedereen is slim, behalve Trump...

Links, rechts en model versus realiteit

Boek: The Moral Case for Fossile Fuels

BTC: waar staan we nu?

Trump en energie

Boek: The Blank Slate

Vernieuwing van de r-K theorie artikelen.

Het gemeenschappelijk bezit experiment

Jordan Peterson over rechts

NAP en de heersende moraal

Juni

Propertarisme: Geen NAP - deel 2

Zwart wit in de reclame

Waarheid in de samenleving

Het model is niet de werkelijkheid

Wat is de oorzaak van globalisme?

Propertarisme: Basis van de samenleving is wederkerigheid

Wie we zijn en van waar we komen

Propertarisme: Geen NAP

Propertarisme: Recht en Eigendom

Propertarisme: Rechten

Propertarisme: Eigendom

De media in de USA en de aanval op Trump

Zullen de mensen ooit ontwaken?

Een propertarische lens op de samenleving

Propertarisme

Mei

De Groep

Logisch gevolg van de in-groep preferentie

Vrijheid en dwang

Alle macht corrumpeert

Is links de oorzaak voor de groei van de overheid?

Stop google (en consorten)

Moreel zakendoen ter verbreiding van het NAP

Moreel zakendoen

Het gevaar van Trump

Rijk worden, en dan...

Rijk worden, maar niet alleen.

Rijk worden.

Ideologie en realiteit.

IQ en samenleving.

Jordan Peterson en de JQ.

April

Vrijwillig terug naar religie?

Socialisme en de filterende werking van geschiedenis

De vermogens piramide

Morele basis en stabiliteit van een samenleving

Op de rand van een gouden eeuw?

De ondergang van links

De gedwongen beschaving

Strategie

Privacy en browsing

Even iets anders: Goud

Mensbeeld

De fout van de post-modernisten

Hoe verder?

Gratis bestaat niet.

Financiële leefregels.

Maart

Wetenschappelijke ondersteuning voor de r/K theorie

Rijkdom, wat is het?

Trump

Skin in the game

Waarom geloven we dingen?

Waarheid versus wetenschap

Immigratie, IQ en cultuur

IQ

Vrije handel

Is de linkse politiek kwaadaardig?

12 Rules for life

Stoïcisme

Faith (geloof en vertrouw)

The meaning of life

Twee hersenhelften

Februarie

Hoppe over alt-rechts

Wat is overgebleven van het libertarisme?

Geld corrumpeert

De perfecte staatsvorm (2)

De perfecte staatsvorm

Vrijheid wat is dat?

Kan een samenleving stabiel zijn zonder religie?

Religie voor en na de verlichting?

Hoe dachten de mensen voor de verlichting?

Rassen realiteit

De ethnostaat

Het NAP een ideologie?

Waarom de rijken rijker worden en de armen armer

Wat je zegt ben je zelf...

Januarie

NAP en de menselijke natuur

Vrijheid

Stoïcisme

Hoe zit het met de stabiliteit van het mannelijk en vrouwelijk imperatief?

Peterson vs Newman - de fallout

Prof. Jordan Peterson op Channel 4

Vrije wil

Non Agressie Principe, een bewuste keuze

Non Agressie Principe

Sam Harris en de steniging

Het Individu vs het Collectief

Adam Kokesh vs Stephan Molyneux

Kritische Theorie

Creativiteit

Weg met die suikerpot!

2017
December

Samenzweringen - zijn ze nodig?

BTC - nogmaals

Tijdspreferentie

BTC - Grafiek

BTC - De crash - alweer

Goed en kwaad

Politieke richtingen

r/K Theorie: Pendelbeweging

De vertrouwensketen

Bitcoin futures

Overton window

r/K Theorie: Instelling

Historisch verloop van IQ

r/K Theorie: een introductie

Een model van ons brein

November

Libertarisme - een doodlopende weg?

Bitcoin: een uniek systeem

r/K theorie: Basisinkomen

r/K Theorie

Samenzweringen

Deposito garantie stelsel onder vuur

De na-oorlogse K-r verschuiving

Evolutie of devolutie (regressie)

De Anterior Cingularis Cortex

De Amygdala

Eigendom

K Strategie

r Strategie

r/K Strategieën

Gelijkheid

Oktober

Een gedachte, deel 6: Waarom in het westen?

Een gedachte, deel 5: religie

De discussie - T. Russell vs S. Molyneux

Een gedachte, deel 4: dynamiek tussen de imperatieven en realiteit

Gezondheid, de eerste stap: Slapen

Rasisme, IAT en interne motivatie

De Drie Grootste Uitvindingen

Een gedachte, deel 3: objective realiteit

De komende revolutie en teleurstelling

Hoe een cultuur sterft

Een gedachte, deel 2: mannelijk en vrouwelijk imperatief

Een gedachte, deel 1: wereldbeeld en individualisme

Gezondheid

Minimumloon

Financiële Vaardigheid: Kopen en verkopen van aandelen

September

Financiële Vaardigheid: Wat zijn aandelen?

Mag je plezier hebben?

Universeel Basisinkomen

Podcasts

Lezen

Brein en lichaam

Ik denk, dus ik besta?

Wat is Beter?

Classic Jekyll Theme

Zijn mensen slecht?

Waarom zijn de rijken rijk?

Conservatief versus progressief

Financiële Vaardigheden: Herhalende Risico's

Orde en chaos

Dominantie Hiërarchie

Augustus

Archetypes

Filosofie: Postmodernisme

Schematisch overzicht van de geschiedenis van kennis

Globalisme en progressivisme

Financiële Vaardigheden: De Spaarrekening

Geschiedenis van de filosofie

Twee soorten logica

Waarom accepteren we belasting?

Financiële Vaardigheden: Risico

Politiek: Elite en Ideologie

Mindset - overvloed of schaarsheid?

Goodby google

Gaia en Zeitgeist

Politiek: Voluntarisme

Financiële Vaardigheden: Sparen

Juli

Financiële Vaardigheden: Berekenen

Financiële Vaardigheden: Rente

Financiële Vaardigheden: Goud

Financiële Vaardigheden: Geld

Financiële Vaardigheden

Techniek en een parabel

Een nieuw thema

Wat is een meme?

Introduction

First, let me apologise for the title. To keep the title within reasonable limits it was necessary to be brief. But what I actually wanted to use is something like: “Why the non agression principle (NAP) cannot be used as the moral principle for society.”

I have been a proponent of the NAP for a long time now -still am- but I have become convinced that it would be a bad idea to use the NAP as the foundation for a society. In this article I try to articulate my reasons for doing so.

It is assumed that readers are familiar with the Non Agression Principle (NAP).

Moral rules

The first objection is that all moral rules are an attempt to gain for self at the cost of others. It does not matter how the rule has been derived.

Morality itself is the differentiation between actions deemed good and bad. The problem with moral rules are therefore not with morality itself, but with codifying it. I.e. it is the act of codifying a moral into a rule that causes the problem.

Morality is a complex set of heuristics that is not always consistent and depends on the circumstances. To try and derive a fixed rule is a subjective process in which the person will reflect its own preferences into the extracted rule. People are incapable of true objectivity. True objectivity can only be achieved in the mathematical realm. Practical objectivity can be achieved in the physical realm. In the mental realm, true objectivity is impossible.

And indeed proponents of the NAP will admit that the first step in deriving the NAP is an axiom. (The universality axiom)

Rules

Given that the real problem is in the codification, why would rules always benefit one group over the other?

Mathematically speaking because rules create a transition point in a linear world.

In a figure:

image

In the real world the line between acceptable behaviour and unacceptable behaviour is a gradual line. The green line in the above figure.

Introducing a rule changes the situation, where previously the behavior in the area’s B and C were acceptable now the rule (in red) adds an acceptable area A and forbids previously acceptable behavior in area C. This creates an opportunity for misuse of the rule.

Of course we can try and create additional rules such that the real curve is approximated. But then we run into the problem that the real curve is not static. It changes over time. This in addition to the fact that the real world is infinitely complex and would require an infinite number of rules.

One of the great inventions in the history of laws was (English) Common Law. Common law is an attempt to create an infinite number of rules based on need. It is probably the best system currently available to deal with the above situation. However it suffers from the problem that it is static in a dynamic world. While there are solutions for this, even common law will lag reality and thus create opportunities for exploit.

Examples

How can the NAP create situations which lead to exploitation?

No doubt there are many such possibilities, but the ones below seem important to me.

Personal

You may have noticed that most libertarians are rather smart. I would assume that the average libertarian has an IQ of at least 1 standard deviation above the average (i.e. >115).

The NAP protects people from theft. Smart people are much more likely to amass wealth and need protection from theft. By offloading the cost of protection on society the libertarian gains additional wealth.

Even when the libertarian pays for his own security he depends on the NAP to justify his actions in reaction to (attempted) theft.

But you may say, are there cases where theft is morally justified?

Maybe not moral-by-rule, but that is precisely the point. There are cases where theft is necessary for a society to survive. This may not be justifiable by a static moral rule, but will be justified by the mere fact of survival. Ultimately survival is the only criteria. When we are dead, our moral rules die with us.

Societal

The first example looked at the personal level, a second example looks at the societal (cultural) level.

Lets look at a small rural community entirely self sufficient, but they do trade with the rest of the country/world with a trade balance of zero.

One day a new supermarket is opened in town. However this supermarket does not source its merchandise locally, it imports them. Through importing they achieve the advantage of scale and they can undercut the local prices. The trade balance of the town goes negative and capital starts to leave town. This sabotages the local economy eventually to the point where the town can no longer support itself and starts shedding conveniences, services, and eventually jobs, people etc. The local culture collapses and the town becomes a ghost town with only a few survivors leading subsistence lives.

At no point in time aggression has been used. Everything happend voluntary. But a culture was wiped out.

Now you may object that since no aggression was used, this is a desirable outcome, the people have moved on to other lives (better?).

But from the point of competing cultures a culture was just wiped out, killed as surely as if all participating people were killed. The people in that culture have been displaced, (economically) forced to live other lives, maybe better, maybe worse. If these people were part of a larger culture (nation) then a reasonable argument can be made that they will integrate well in the other place they now live. But that argument cannot be made if those people had an entirely different culture and are incapable to integrate properly in a different (competing) culture.

Before we use the darwinian argument to justify this, think of the consequences for libertarianism. What if this town was the only libertarian town in existence? What if the super market was in effect the attack from a foreign culture?

Ideology

Every ideology is instable. The NAP -being derived from pure thought without representation in reality- is an ideology.

Reality is what is, it does not confirm to anything but itself.

An ideology is a (desired) view of reality that is not reality itself.

When an ideology is imposed on reality this is only possible through the expenditure of work. Reality must be made to conform to the ideology. And since all produce is subject to decay this work must be performed constantly.

When work must be performed to conform reality to an ideology, the maximum achievable standard of living is lower than it could have been without the ideology.

The most benign ideologies can be maintained as a small expenditure with just a small impact on the achievable standard of living. A society implementing this ideology will most likely find that their standard of living is higher because of it.

However other societies that live closer to reality will in time increase their standard of living to far above the ideological society. This because the savings will accru exponentially like compounded interest. In due time the less ideological society will overwhelm the ideological society in a darwinian crush.

Active harmfull ideologies will not only require the permanent expenditure of effort, but will at the same time reduce the productive capacity of the society. Societies that implement active harmfull ideologies will enter a death spiral by themselves, even if there are no competing societies.

Examples

Of the benign ideologies there are many examples in Europe’s histories. It can even be argued that the historical difference between western europe and the rest of the world is part of the greater adherence to reality that western culture used to have.

Of the active harmfull ideologies we can find examples in many cultures that have disappeared in the earth’s history like on the Easter Islands or the early settlements of Greenland.

The example of Greenland is interesting because their ideology was benign in the beginning, but only became active harmfull when an external factor (temperature) changed.

Trend to globalism

For the above reasons, all ideologies will either disappear or have to become global. No ideology can survive in the long term unless all competing societies are removed or assimilated. It goes without saying that even then only the benign ideologies can survive.

The further the ideology is apart from reality, the stronger the drive towards globalism will be. In part because harmfull ideologies depend on expansion to fuel their existence.

Adherents of the NAP will probably argue that the NAP cannot be enforced globally but will spread by voluntary action. If so, then NAP will probably disappear as societies that implement the NAP will be at a disadvantage as compared with societies that are closer to reality.

There is a minimal risk that NAP societies will want to use preemptive self-defence and attack non-NAP societies, see below. However unlikely, this cannot be excluded.

Personal vs group

Unlimited vs limited environment

As a person, our environment is for all practical purposes unlimited. As a person we deal with other persons, and there is a near infinite supply of them. We thus rarely -if ever- encounter restrictions that cause us to be in a darwinian conflict with other persons. NAP proponents will be aware of the lifeboat problems within NAP. These problems cannot be solved using NAP and are usually deferred as “not yet relevant”. This is perfectly acceptable on the personal level since these lifeboat scenarios are very rare.

For society the environment consist of other societies. All societies together compete with each other for survival in a finite world. Societies thus are in a permanent lifeboat situation. Making a single society (our society) subject to rule by NAP disadvantages our society.

A very clear example can be seen today where NAP proponents are in favor of open borders. This undermines the very society they live in and even undermines the capability of their society to implement rule by NAP.

Unlimited vs limited lifespan

As a person, our lifespan is limited. Our personal environment is a snapshot in time, it is temporary. The environment itself is long term chaotic in nature, it is impossible to predict the future. However in this long term chaotic system there are short term islands of stability. For the west, the time since the second WW pretty much seems like such an island of stability. Even though society has changed, it has done so relatively slowly and given the people in it time to adjust.

In a stable environment people can use a fixed moral code like the NAP to achieve optimal results (as noted before). However from this we cannot conclude that this will also be the case in the future. Since our lifetime is limited, we can close our eyes for this and assume that our environment will remain stable over our lifetime. A fair argument can be made that human psychology is ill suited to anything else but the assumption that the future will be as the past.

Again, for society the situation is different. Societies life forever (but only when successful). A society must be able to cope with anything the environment throws at it. Limiting itself to a single response will damage the changes of that society to survive. Using the NAP would prevent a society from using aggression to expand its borders. But if the adjacent societies would not be bound to the NAP, these societies could wage wars against the NAP society and in due time they would be successful. There are two reasons for this:

a) the NAP society would be limited to self defence of people only. This would allow an attacker to take a small area and then stop its attack. Since the people outside this area are not aggressed against, they could -under the NAP- not retaliate.

b) another reason is asymmetry in time and chance. If a NAP society cannot attack an outside society, but that outside society can attack the NAP society, then even if the outside society has only a 1 in 10 chance of winning such an attack, in due time the number of attacks would be high enough to guarantee a win.

(The only way to prevent the above is to define ‘preventive attacks’ as a means of self defence. Which will then run into a host of other problems and basically annihilate the NAP rule for society as a whole. Which proves the point of this article.)

The r-K cycle.

This observation is not aimed at the NAP, but serves to place liberalism and libertarianism (as the most extreme form of liberalism) in a context. From this we cannot really draw conclusions, but it does suggest that the NAP is part of a cyclical pattern that will in time give birth to another phase. If we are to break the pattern, the NAP must be stript of its properties that support the pattern. Or alternatively the NAP must be expanded with properties that break the pattern.

The r-K cycle refers to the principle behind the organisational cycle of societies. As far back as Plato people have realised that the governmental shape of societies seems to go through cycles from anarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, democracy, and back to anarchy. Only to repeat again.

r-K refers to reproductive strategies that shape all species, including humans. The letter ‘r’ refers to one extreme in which a limitless environment leads a species to reproduce as quickly as possible (example: Rabbits) while the letter ‘K’ stands for a strategy where only the best adapted individuals in a species reproduce (example: Wolves).

Humans are mostly K-select, but in times of excess will drift towards r-strategies. This is a multi-generational drift needing several generations to come to fruition. Part of this change is the disappearing of in-group preferences, the adoption of a consumer oriented lifestyle and libertine lifestyles in general as well as extremely loose sexual morals.

NAP (and libertarianism) are a part of the societal change from K-select lifestyles to r-select lifestyles. NAP places the individual at the center of the (moral) universe rather than the group. It is therefore part of the early transition of K towards r. Once the individual has been placed at the center it becomes unavoidable that universal subjectivity becomes dominant (nihilism). Which makes libertine policies not only possible but eventually even enforces them.

By this time the libertarians wonder what has happened and where the borders of the NAP must be placed. But it is too late to stop this process from completing. As all morals become subjective, group cohesion waters down to the point where the group fractures into multiple smaller groups. When resources are depleted to the point where the conditions no longer support r-strategies, these groups begin to war on each other and fracture into yet smaller groups. Starting the transition towards anarchy. Anarchy provides the conditions for K-strategists to re-emerge and the cycle starts again.

End of article.

Note: I do update this document from time to time, but not on a fixed schedule.

Copyright 2018 overbeterleven.nl. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy and link without prior approval. Please link back to this article for future improvements. If you copy or link to this article, please drop me an email (user ‘rien’ at this domain) as I would like to follow any reactions on other sites to this article.