Where results make sense

About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us

Topic: Non-aggression principle

    Note: these results are not from the primary (high quality) database.

Ads by Google

In the News (Thu 10 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is an ethical prohibition against "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force or the threat of such upon persons or their property (the principle does not preclude retaliation against aggression). The non-aggression principle faces three kinds of criticism: the first holds that the principle is immoral, the second argues that it is impossible to apply consistently in practice, while the third holds that the interpretation of the principle is too ambiguous to be useful. Therefore, rule utilitarians advocate the non-aggression principle as a general rule in order to minimize bad consequences (as well as to serve as a time-saving device that relieves the individual of the need to engage in lengthy utilitarian calculations for every interpersonal situation that arises where aggression is tempting). en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Non-aggression_axiom   (2554 words)

Youth Violence, Schools, and the Management Question Baker (1998) has suggested that youth violence and unwanted aggression in schools may simply be "the manifestation of poorness of fit" between an individual student's particular social context and the social context of his or her school (p.30). Zero Tolerance assumes (as do most 'get-tough' discipline policies) that there are only certain types of violent and aggressive behaviours, however, that are considered universally unacceptable; for certain cases of severe physical violence and for some forms of verbal abuse and hate-oriented crimes this may in indeed be the case. Zero Tolerance is an extension of the belief that the status quo and the moral majority determines which types of behaviours are inherently good, and which are not. www.umanitoba.ca /publications/cjeap/articles/jull.html   (2554 words)

FMNN Editorial-Market Analysis The standard "principled libertarian" answer, based on the Zero Aggression Principle, should be "no." Bob stole from you, and he defrauded me. The television is rightfully yours, even though so concluding is inimical to my immediate interests. My suspicion is that many of the "right libertarians" who normally argue from the vantage of principle avoid this subject because they have yet to find a workable argument which isn't of the "consequentialist exceptionalism" stripe. I'm talking about figuring out what principle is at stake, applying it as the context dictates, and accepting as correct the conclusion which follows... www.freemarketnews.com /pview/5837/1149/html/index.php   (2554 words)

Zap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Zaps are also stickers representing a military squadron that are placed on various areas of aircraft. "Zap", a song by Eric Johnson on his en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Zap   (2554 words)

Abortion and Liberty Therefore, also implicit in non-aggression is the protection principle: if you endanger people, then you owe them protection from the harm. Causing children to be is not aggression, but it does put children in harm's way, for to be helpless and dependent is to be in harm's way. The protection principle is a vital point, but it is being overlooked by proponents on both sides of abortion. www.plagal.org /media/liberty.html   (689 words)

What is Objectivism? The Non-Aggression Principle is not even violated by communicating something that is emotionally hurtful, disturbing, hateful, disgusting or obscene, provided that the communication does not amount to a threat to initiate the use of coercive physical force. Note: There is nothing about the Non-Aggression Principle that requires consent or the absence of consent to be communicated to the person initiating the use of coercive physical force: when consent exists is a question of fact, and sometimes consent will be implied by the circumstances or by non-verbal communication. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions - or a grab bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew. www.mondopolitico.com /ideologies/atlantis/whatisobjectivism.htm   (3304 words)

Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Both philosophies have similar political goals and are united by what libertarians call the non-aggression principle: both philosophies oppose the initiation of force, though sometimes for different reasons. Both also share an adherence to the "non-aggression principle," philosophical principle stating that no one may initiate physical force against others, for any reason; force may only be used to repel an initiation. However, while all Objectivists and some libertarians hold this principle on egoistic grounds, many other libertarians base it on a form of consequentialism (such as "rule utilitarianism"). en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism   (861 words)

The Temporal Doorway - Law and Regulation In libertarian politics, this is the non-aggression principle - the idea that no man may initiate the use of force on another. Law - a rule that represents a concrete instance of the abstraction represented by a principle (such as the non-aggression principle). In libertarian politics, this minimally affirms that the government cannot be granted the right to violate non-aggression, since no one possesses such a right and since the power of government comes from the people. www.temporaldoorway.com /den/regulation.htm   (330 words)

The Temporal Doorway - Non-Aggression Integrated Non-aggression is a principle that allows for the operation of many variations of morality within its context - it is a political principle, and it is a good one because of its clear and broadly applicable nature and because it is relatively non-intrusive. Since the non-aggression principle is a political guide, not a fundamental precept of morality, we must ask ourselves what a libertarian legal system would say of the responsibilities of each person involved in such a situation. Recent issues of the magazine "Liberty" (1999) have contained articles which suggest that the initiation of force prohibition (which I will generally refer to as the non-aggression principle) must be re-examined, and, ultimately, displaced from its position as a foundation stone of libertarianism. www.temporaldoorway.com /den/nonaggression.htm   (2824 words)

TheRealityCheck.Org Featured Writer The Non-Aggression Principle, also called the Zero Aggression Principle, is the principle that states that human beings don’t have the right to initiate force against each other. That’s because libertarians abide by the Non-Aggression Principle. The simplicity of this premise is so fundamental to libertarianism that the NAP was originally called the Grade School Principle, but its name was changed because students kept confusing it with the Grade School Principal—who was merely the guy they hired to enforce it. www.therealitycheck.org /FeaturedWriters/jdm053105.htm   (869 words)

Ethical code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Zero Aggression Principle as an ethical code among the general public. In the late 20th century, a movement began to popularize the en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Ethical_code   (869 words)

The Reincarnation Portal In principle each stack in the battle does its attacks to the enemy stacks that it was paired to at the very begin of the battle. Zero pop.: In the case of fully depleting your population, complete stacks of population consuming units may disband themselves (in random order: you may be able to keep supporting some of your smaller stacks). Zero geld: In the case of fully depleting your geld, complete stacks of geld consuming units may disband themselves (in random order: you may be able to keep supporting some of your smaller stacks). www.the-reincarnation.com /guide.php   (869 words)

Byron at Ground Zero The individual offenders are liable because they are members of the hostile groups that engage in unlawful aggression, commit "widespread or systematic" cruelty, and perpetuate harms with a design to eliminate opposing cultures. that is compatible with and indeed enhances the principle of individual responsibility." It draws on the practice of distributing liability in the law of torts on the basis of relative fault and the defense of provocation against the charge of murder: He is adamant that civil liberties must not be compromised for the sake of security, that the Constitution must not be suspended even in times of war and national emergency. mason.gmu.edu /~berkowit/byronatgroundzero.htm   (869 words)

The IR Theory Knowledge Base The principle predictive power of the theory is in the likelihood of war and the stability of alliances. Many of these principles of just war are part of the body of international law and thus are legally binding on states and their agents (Viotti, P. and M. Kauppi, (eds.). States come to be a part of an international society by accepting that various principles and institutions govern the way in which they conduct their foreign relations. www.irtheory.com /know.htm   (869 words)

BLUE: Feature Archive, William Stone III - Zero Aggression Institute The Zero Aggression Institute is founded with a dual mission of educating both devotees and non-devotees of the Zero Aggression Principle. Most surprising was the fact that while the Zero Aggression Principle is central to libertarian ideals, there is no directed effort to educate individuals in its benefits. A training program using the classical apprentice/journeyman/master approach to certification: Certified Zero Aggression Principle Apprentice, Philosopher, and Master www.bluegreenearth.us /archive/article/2003/stone3.html   (869 words)

The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) Neil Smith, is one of the purest expressions of the limitations of government and the place of the Zero Aggression Principle in everyday life. The ZAP does not rquire individuals to perform actions that are outside of their normal behavior as human beings, making it very easy to embrace the principle. This site is copyright © 2003, The Zero Aggression Institute. www.0ap.org /zap   (869 words)

UrbanTulsa.com - Article Although the zero aggression principle teaches that you cannot use offensive tactics, it does allow for persuasion, the use of education, or setting an example. To Libertarians, taxation to overcome a problem or build a stadium is a violation of the zero aggression principle because it requires that citizens pay taxes for a project whether they agree or not. Zero aggression means that we do not believe it is moral to initiate force against others just because we want to achieve something: politically, economically, socially. www.urbantulsa.com /article.asp?id=1886   (869 words)

A Free Society I believe that moral skepticism is not correct, there are absolute principles of justice (such as the non-aggression principle and the principle of self-ownership), and these principles lead to the conclusion that libertarianism is the correct political philosophy. When we combine the non-aggression principle with the principles of private property (self-ownership, the homestead principle, and the right to make contracts and to trade), "Taxation is theft" becomes an intelligible statement. The non-aggression principle is such a higher law. libertariannation.org /a/f63h2.html   (2177 words)

Money, Banking, and the Gambling-Stakes Paradigm for Loan and Labor Contracts Other libertarians like me regard imprisonment for debt as a violation of the non-aggression principle, whether the prisoner is a criminal or not and whether he signed a voluntary slavery contract or not. Such laws are overruled by the fundamental principle of a free nation's legal system—the non-aggression principle. It would be a legitimate act of defense against aggression for the loaner or his agents to use force against the debtor to take possession of the collateral. libertariannation.org /a/f73h1.html   (4980 words)

Stefan Blankertz: Gestalt Therapy The fundamental principle of liberty all libertarians agree upon is that each individual ought to be free to do anything with himself and his property as long as he does not do harm to another person or the person's property. To Goodman, there is a clear distinction between the aggression of an individual organism that tries to solve a complex problem and the aggression of the collective state which represses the individual problem-solving activity. Again, Goodman argues against the standard opinion: He says that the individual aggression in nature is reasonably grounded whereas the aggression of the state is purely destructive. ourworld.compuserve.com /homepages/gik_gestalt/blankertz.html   (3530 words)

Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly This non-aggression principle is the foundation, the sine qua non, of a moral society. By taking care of their child in the womb, the parents prevent an aggression that would happen if they were, instead, to tear her away from the life support she gets there. In discussing born children, Nathaniel Branden, when he was Rand's closest associate, wrote, "The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions." He does not explain exactly why we must. www.fnsa.org /v1n2/gordon1.html   (8042 words)

RIP Ronald Reagan - Page 17 - The Cellar The NAP would keep the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideals as a sort of hothouse plant ranging only within the United States, producing only a bouquet of parlor politicians. Nobody who supports using the force of government to prevent or punish someone for any decisions or actions they take with their own body or the organisms within that body are a libertarian. With a body of philosophy with three major and separate streams in it, the right-, the left-, and the anarcho-libertarian, libertarianism is already an umbrella term, and here lie the shades, or the varieties, if you prefer. cellar.org /showthread.php?p=179852   (2782 words)

The Non-Aggression Principle and Weapons Ownership, by David W. Masten – anti-state.com When the weapon in question has much greater potency and area of affect, libertarians start to disagree on whether the mere possession of that weapon constitutes aggression.  The principled, non-aggressive answer is that the weapon owner must be able to provide restitution to the injured parties in the event of an accident. One of the tough problems in the practical application of the Non-Aggression Principle is that of owning certain classes of weapons. On the flip side of the coin, any attempt to outlaw such weapons is itself an act of aggression.  By applying the concepts of restitution in a manner similar to other potentially dangerous yet common objects such as automobiles, even weapons of mass destruction could be legitimately possessed without causing unreasonable costs to others. www.anti-state.com /masten/masten1.html   (857 words)

Non-Coercive Justice and Simple Punishment For example, the non-aggression principle implies that all humans have the right to their own body and the property that they either make first use of in nature or acquire by voluntary means from someone else. There is no consistent principle that states that if A steals B’s watch, then B may subsequently steal A’s shirt. For example, Rothbard states that if A stole $15,000 from B, that A must pay back $30,000, plus compensation for psychic costs borne by B. Such a system, which we may label the principle of “two wrongs make a right,” is intuitively appealing. www.strike-the-root.com /3/halbrooks/halbrooks5.html   (2277 words)

Liberty for Sale » Blog Archive » Let’s Talk About “Force” The non-aggression principle or non-aggression axiom is defined as a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons or property. I’ve suggested this before…the non-agression principle may well be an ideal to strive for but it isn’t anything one should be coerced into accepting in order to fully participate in the LP…anymore than one should be coerced into accepting the doctrine of Original Sin in order to fully participate in their faith. In effect the basic principles involved are really little more than the guidelines we have to muddle through, because trying to objectify these concepts in start terms only leads to attempting to take the logic to extremes where it all breaks down. libertyforsale.com /?p=222   (11783 words)

Law and Violence Therefore, violence used to compel compensation to a victim or to punish a criminal constitutes a new round of aggression and violates the non-aggression principle. The fundamental law of the self-defense libertarians is the non-aggression principle. Principles of fairness or retribution should not be imposed by brute force as a substitute for justice. libertariannation.org /a/f61h4.html   (5375 words)

Warmongering 'Libertarians' The Libertarian Party requires its members to sign a pledge, which states, "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals." This pledge is one statement of the non-aggression principle. It is this principle which is the lodestone, the pole star, by which libertarian ethics, morality and policy all steer. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. www.lewrockwell.com /orig2/curley4.html   (970 words)

The Social Contract Is Null and Void It’s the zero aggression principle, upheld by libertarians and generally followed by most people in their day-to-day interactions with each other. Anything within the bounds of the zero aggression principle that limits the power of the state and relieves people of its oppression is fine with me. The most rational legal guidelines I can think of are simply not to violate any law that circumstantially overlaps nicely with the zero aggression principle (such as laws against murder, theft, etc.), and not to violate any law that you’re likely to get punished for, beyond what you can tolerate. www.strike-the-root.com /4/gregory/gregory2.html   (970 words)

Boot Boortz Blog: Boortz and LP "Purity" One of those angles is purity, and while I generally agree with the notion that it is possible to define "libertarianism" with reference to adherence to a general principe (specifically the Zero Aggression Principle), I have one mild area of disagreement with Mr. Of course the next question would be to what principle Boortz does lend his ultimate allegiance, when push comes to shove and he's past the point of throwing around cool libertarian catch phrases. Boortz was talking about the petition on his show, and complaining about how the people supporting it were too concerned about "purity." Although I didn't hear this myself, I'm assuming that Boortz didn't specify which LP principle relative to foreign policy he believes we are overzealously trying to protect. www.freedom2008.com /bootboortz/archives/002025.html   (970 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us   Copyright © 2005-2007 www.factbites.com Usage implies agreement with terms.