Talk:Non-aggression principle

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.

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,^{[note 1]} is inherently wrong.^[1][2] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States^[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism^{[failed verification]} and minarchism.^[4][5][6][7] In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense.^[3] 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.^[3] 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". ^[8][9] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States^[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism^{[failed verification]} and minarchism.^{[10][11][12][13]}

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,^{[note 2]} 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,^{[note 3]} is inherently wrong.^[14][15] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States^[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism^{[failed verification]} and minarchism.^{[16][17][18][19]} In contrast to pacifism, the NAP does not forbid forceful defense.^[3] 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.^[3] 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". ^[20][21] It is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism in the United States^[3] and is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism^{[failed verification]} and minarchism.^{[22][23][24][25]}

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)