Non-Aggression Principle

An animated music video explaining the Non-Aggression Principle.

To help us create more animation shorts with which to educate the public on principles of liberty, you can donate at the following address:
http://www.LiberationAnimation.com/donate.php

Purchase pro-liberty merchandise at...
http://www.liberationanimation.com/shop.php

Donate your time. Send us a message if you're interested in collaborating with us.

Spread this video! Favorite it, give it a thumbs up, share the web address with others, mirror it... whatever you have to do to expose more people to this principle!

Follow us on...
Our WebSite: http://www.LiberationAnimation.com
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberationAnimation
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberation-Animation/197560420255982
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/LiberationAnim

Non-Aggression Principle by Liberation Animation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
All content in this work is either completely original, from the public domain, or used under a creative commons license.

LYRICS TO "NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE"

If you want this world to be not perfect but more peaceful
I have a wee suggestion to make you're day more gleeful.

As a general rule of thumb don't be the first to end the fun
With physical force, threats of force or scamming peaceful people.

Non-Aggression Principle says it's not justified
To initiate coercion with force or threats or lies.

You'll like make more friends if you follow it
But if you don't and say you do, you're just a hypocrite.

For life to be more fun, we should support the Non-Aggression Principle, Hey!

According to the Non-Aggression Principle it's not good to initiate coercion.
What's coercion?
Forcing others to do something using physical force, threats of physical force or fraud.
Physical Force?
I'll let this angry cop explain.

For the rest of the Lyrics, visit:
http://www.liberationanimation.com/watch.php

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• non-aggression
• principle
• NAP
• agorism
• agorist
• anarchocapitalism
• anarcho-capitalism
• anarchy
• animation
• cartoon
• critical
• coercion
• cooperation
• demoreel
• economics
• free
• freedom
• force
• individual
• individualism
• liberty
• libertarian
• libertarianism
• logic
• market
• peace
• rational
• reason
• rights
• society
• stateless
• thinking
• trade
• voluntarism
• voluntarist
• voluntaryism
• voluntaryist
• politicians
• police
• brutality
• IRS
• Internal
• revenue
• service
• cop
• cops
• officer

[mjbarrowful]

Does NAP apply to some animals?

[LiberationAnimation]

@mjbarrowful,

NAP is an ethical guideline for interactions strictly between humans. If it applied to wild animals, we couldn't hunt to survive.

Some animals belong to human caregivers. As such, they are protected by NAP. Bob cannot harm someone else's dog.

Bob can harm his own dog without violating NAP. There are actions I oppose that don't violate NAP (being a jerk, torturing animals). To stop bad behavior without violating NAP ourselves, we can use the voluntary method of public ostracism.

[mjbarrowful]

@LiberationAnimation I was thinking about factory farming in particular. I usually approach ethics from a utilitarian stand point. This would mean that animals wouldn't be excluded from ethical considerations. Do you consider NAP to be a consequentialist or a deontological position?

[LiberationAnimation]

@mjbarrowful,

I apply NAP consistently because I value a better quality of life for humans. If NAP resulted in a lower quality of life, or if exceptions resulted in a better quality of life, I'd revise my ethics. So I'm a consequentialist.

I would apply NAP to any species with whom humans could voluntarily trade, but none exist.

Some people apply NAP to sentient animals, but how does one determine the cut-off between sentient & non-sentient & what if a human doesn't make the cut?

[LiberationAnimation]

@jamosmithlol,

If government didn't force me to pay police, I could instead choose a service provider of my choice. For example, if I caught a thief on camera, and he refused to pay me restitution, a private judge could report the incident to a private credit rating service. Then people could voluntarily choose to no longer trade nor associate with the thief due to his poor rating. Without access to groceries, drinking water, etc. the thief would have incentive to change his ways.

[LiberationAnimation]

@Engravingsful,

Puffin, slow loris and Homo sapiens. Thanks for asking. The puffin hates it when people assume he's a penguin. First of all he's way cuter. And he lives in the Northern hemisphere, while penguins prefer the south. So good on ya mate for not being fooled. The loris is an adorable primate from Asia. (Definitely not drawn to scale)

[veritasunleashed]

@LiberationAnimation

The very idea of NAP is nonexistent(as is observably obvious) in the animal world, hence this is a debate that holds no water in my opinion. Only humans are capable of morality and creating advanced ethical system like NAP that only apply to fellow humans able to abide by the principle and reciprocate.

[veritasunleashed]

@mjbarrowful

Only if animals develop the ability to formulate and practice something like the NAP!

[randytate]

This needs to be re-mixed. The music is too loud, so you can't hear the words.

[kshackleton]

@LiberationAnimation

Steven Pinker has good evidence to support the claim. He has a short video on TED that can be found on YouTube, and he just released a book entitled The Better Angels of our Nature. I finished the book a few weeks ago. His argument is compelling.

Even with the deaths in the wars of the 20th century, on a per capita basis, it was less violent than many centuries past.

[LiberationAnimation]

@kshackleton,

I remain skeptical that violence has declined due to larger democratic states considering evidence like the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

But I'm happy to say, we agree. I despise warlords too! I agree life for U.S. citizens tends to be way better than life for people ruled by warlords.

All I'm saying, is that there's an even better option. (Nothing like the hills of Afghanistan.) Something new. Don't you think there's room for improvement?

[kshackleton]

@LiberationAnimation I do see the difference, and it seems to me that your use is far more broad than most people would agree with. I did not intend my use to be that narrow, and you should also be aware that when the British went into Afghanistan more than a century ago, the tribal warlords were well established. These clans fought with one another constantly.

The evidence is clear though....as the states became larger and more democratic, violence declined.

[LiberationAnimation]

@kshackleton,

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you use "state" to mean only a liberal democracy. I use "state" to mean any coercive monopoly on aggression within a geographic region.

To you, Afghan hills are stateless because there's no physical presence of a liberal democracy. To me, these regions have been brutalized by many states, including the Soviets, Taliban, U.S., Afghan government & local rulers, all of which are states by my definition.

See the difference?