NAP and children

Some good research about a commonly accepted form of violence in our society: parental corporal punishment of children.

Of course, this post is not a comprehensive digest of all research on the subject. Instead it gives a good idea where to look and what to look for. I put this together to prepare for a short talk in my home Libertarian Meetup in London (come along, have a pint).

Prevalence of corporal punishment

Corporal punishment is an act aiming at controlling behaviour by causing pain but not injury.

Corporal punishment of children is common. In the US, 65% of children under two experience it, 80% of children are being hit by the time they are ten and 85% are corporally punished at some point of their lives. 50% of children reported having been hit with a belt or similar object [Gershoff].

When children are being hit, it usually is repetitive. In the US, 42% of children were spanked, hit, slapped, shaken or hit with an object in the last month alone [Lansford].

UK data shows a similar pattern. 55% of parents admit "smacking" the their children before the age of five. Add to this milder forms of parent on child violence like shaking, pushing or restraining to get a full picture [Hansen].

Interestingly Swedish parents are 4 times less likely to use corporal punishment than American parents [Lansford].

Spanking violates NAP

Unless a parent hits the child in self-defence (not very likely), they are initiating physical violence against the child. By definition, this violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

If the moral theory of NAP is correct, then this parent-on-child violence has negative consequences. Below are more findings about this.

Consequences of NAP violations

According to meta analyses of research [e.g. Durrant], corporal punishment leads to a number of shitty things later in life. Some of them are: increased aggression, depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, reduced intelligence, delinquency, spousal assault, deteriorated parent-child relationships and attachment disorders. The fact that corporal punishment leads to family violence later in life completes the life cycle of aggression.

Neuroimaging studies suggest that physical punishment may reduce the volume of
the brain’s grey matter in areas associated with performance on IQ tests. Physical punishment can cause alterations in the dopaminergic regions, which can make it difficult for a person to experience happiness [Durrant].

Here are some examples of detailed research.

Spanked children are more aggressive. For example, 2-years-olds who are spanked three times a month are 50% more likely to demonstrate aggression just two years later [Taylor].

Children who are harshly physically punished (but not harshly enough to leave marks or bruises) are twice as likely to develop anxiety, substance addictions and severe personality disorders [Afifi].

All around the world, children who are spanked are less intelligent. Spanking of children aged 2 to 4 reduces IQ on average by 5 points. Even a small amount of spanking makes a difference. Also, the more frequent the spanking, the higher the intelligence drop [Straus].

Unfortunately for most people, negative effect of spanking are long lasting. For example a study of 16-years-olds showed increased adolescent depression and reduced self-esteem in people who were harshly corporally punished in childhood [Bender].

All the above analyses controlled for demographic and parenting variables other than spanking to remove correlations with other risk factors. Additionally, some research controls for initial level of child's aggression to address causality [Durrant].

The society mirrors the family

It seems like aggression against children may be a more prevalent form of violence than even the state!

People who grow up to be unintelligent, depressed and aggressive will not bring about the change. Similarly, those who cannot experience happiness will not hold it as the highest moral purpose as objectivists want it.

If you want the society to accept NAP, the most important thing you can do is to apply NAP to your own children and help others apply it to theirs.

And one day there will be enough people on the planet capable of de-normalising state violence that voluntaryism will become the dominant social paradigm.

Beyond politics

If you have been spanked as a child, do you understand how it shaped you? Do you know someone who is spanking? Tell them how they are unintentionally harming a child. Know a child who is being spanked? Support the child.

"Peaceful parenting" is the term to google if you want to learn more.



References

• A repository of research by country: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/research/making-visible.html
• Afifi, et.al., (2012), "Physical punishment and mental disorders: results from a nationally representative US sample", Pediatrics, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22753561/
• Bender et. al. (2007), "Use of harsh physical discipline and developmental outcomes in adolescence, Development and Psychopathology", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390918/
• Durrant, et.al. (2012), "Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research", Canadian Medical Association Journal, http://www.cheo.on.ca/uploads/Durrant%20EnsomCMAJ2012.pdf
• Gershoff, et.al. (2007), "The case against corporal punishment of children: Converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and implications for U.S. public policy", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, http://www.nospank.net/Gershoff%20%20Bitensky%20on%20Corporal%20Punishment%20(2007).pdf
• Hansen, et.al. (2008), "Millennium Cohort Study: Third Survey: A User’s Guide to Initial Findings", Centre for Longitudinal Studies, http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/5931/1/MCS_3_Descriptive_Report_Oct_2008.pdf
• Lansford, et.al. (2010), "Corporal Punishment of Children in Nine Countries as a Function of Child Gender and Parent Gender", International Journal of Pediatrics, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952896/
• Straus, et.al. (2009), "Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children's Cognitive Ability: A Longitudinal Study ofTwo Nationally Representative Age Cohorts", Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP51.pdf
• Taylor et. al. (2010), "Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior", Pediatrics, http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/125/5/e1057.short

Freedom in Professional Life

There are three (3) approaches to freedom you can take in your professional life.

No more. No less. Three shalt be the number of approaches, and the number shall be three. Four shalt thou not it be, neither two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

1. Geek
2. Sovereign
3. Sage

This YouTube video explains what I mean.

Yes, I still need to work on the technical angles, but I hope you will enjoy the video anyway.

Taxation-is-Theft-Notes

This piece of cultural subversion is very exciting

... and this method has a long tradition.

My own Bill of Rights

A whole bunch of Bills of Rights were introduced all over the planet to limit crazy governments. Most of them did not quite work as intended.

In the face of these epic failures, I decided to make my own Bill of Rights. (OK, I borrowed the idea from Peter Gerlach. Thanks Peter!)

Here it comes. Bestowed upon blah-blah-blah. I claim the right to:

1. Actions

1.1 Do things just to see if I like them.

1.2 Enjoy a process without an aim in mind.

1.3 Make mistakes.

1.4 Need more resources such as information, time, help to succeed in any tasks.

2. Feelings

2.1 Love every part of myself unconditionally.
2.2 Feel any feelings and to describe them to others.

2.3 Have unjustified preferences.

3. Thoughts
3.1 Be conscious of anything that is going on.

3.2 Not know or not remember things.
3.3 Think any thought and say it.

3.4 Have conflicting thoughts.
3.5 Change my mind on things.

4. Relationships
4.1 Choose relationships I invest in.

4.2 Escalate relationships.

4.3 Choose my own level of involvement in other people's things.

4.4 Not be interrupted.

5. Amendments

5.1 Amend this Bill of Rights in the future.

What is your Bill of Rights?

What I want from the movement

People join communities because they expect to benefit from it. So to attract people to the voluntaryist movement we need to offer stuff.

Here are some things I would like the voluntaryist movement to do for me. Maybe others would be attracted to this too. This is not going to happen by itself but I do not give a shit, I still want it.

1. I want to experience efficacy in making the world freer. I want to meet people who make freedom for themselves and I want to learn from them. I want to see non-coercive approaches to relationships, parenting, education and career management implemented in people's lives.

2. I want more opportunities for friendship. Shared interests and no desire to pull guns at each other are great starters. I need more varied opportunities for friendly socialising - parties, concerts, camping trips, kayaking escapades, barbeques, anything.

3. In particular, I want more friendships with women in the voluntaryist movement. We need to cherish the females we do have. Contrary to most views I heard, the reason for the shortage of females in the voluntaryist ranks is that male libertarians suck at pick up. Simple as that. Improve your pick up. It is not a shallow pursuit, it goes deep into who you are and how you relate to the world. Then start bringing your GFs along for god's sake. Look up pick up artists on reddit.com for starters.

4. I want a balanced magazine with relevant quality coverage and commentary of world events using voluntaryist insight into social structures. I am bored with The Economist but I also do not want to hear how the dollar is about to collapse at any moment. I want voluntaryist entertainment which is free from statist sympathies and from state hatred also.

5. I want an opportunity for rational but limited political action (bribing, lobbying, maybe even voting etc.).

6. I want an option to join a voluntaryist housing co-op where I can can live relaxed amongst peaceful and rational people. And I do not want this co-op to be on the surface of an ocean, at the bottom of an ocean or in any other place inside the ocean.

Final word on emotional self-defence

Peter Gerlach's explanation of emotional self-defence has gotta be the final word on enforcing the verbal Non-Aggression Principle. There is nothing else to add as far as I am concerned. The end. Finito. Koniec.

He explains how to defend against boundary violations by confronting violators using respectful assertion. He claims this prevents future violations.

I love how Peter's strategy intelligently recognises the psychological development of the target of your confrontation. He says that if the target is an unaware "grown wounded child" (which most people are), they will not hear your confrontation as it was voiced. They will instead counter-attack, change the subject, cry etc.

You then need to empathetically recognise their points and repeat your respectful assertive confrontation until you are heard.

I strongly believe that emotional self-defence is necessary for voluntaryists to master if they want to influence the social fabric. As always, only engage if you cannot avoid or escape!

NAP is one of many strategies

For some people NAP is an universal and objective ethical requirement.

For example NAP is the foundation of Stefan Molyneux's argument from morality. His logic is that any ethical theory must be NAP-compliant for it to be possible to be universally successfully applied (or at least this is how I understand his theory of Universally Preferable Behaviour). But a theory saying "it is good to have as many of my needs met as as possible" also can be universally accepted and yet result in initiation of violence by some.

Ayn Rand also thought that initiation of aggression was universally immoral. Her objection to violence was that violence contradicts reason. But I do not think that by initiating aggression a person necessarily gives up their reason. 

Here are a few examples where NAP does not apply:

• Price Harry lives off the system of state violence and he probably gets his needs met fine. Because the same applies to other members of the political class, he is not an isolated case.
• If anyone close to me was starving, for whatever reason, I would steal food to feed them. I would not consider it immoral. This is a rare "lifeboat situation", but still it counts.

So maybe NAP is just one strategy for getting your life needs met. I think it is a deep and good one and it works 99% of the time. But I do not think it is the only one.

Brainwashing and threatening people is a working strategy for some.

Being a skilful thief can also work for some situations. Especially if you know how not to get caught.

This is just not something people like to talk about, because it is a bit creepy. But I gave two examples above to prove that what I say is true.

What are some other strategies? How to choose which one to use? I do not know. I am not sure if it is worth figuring this out for me at this moment. But on the other hand, it is interesting... Perhaps it depends on the person and their situation? Did our rulers discover the answers to these questions?

Perhaps Leonard Cohen features this dilemma in "Story of Isaac". Obviously I have no idea what he really meant. Who the fuck knows such things anyway?

And if you call me brother now, 

Forgive me if I inquire, 

"just according to whose plan?"

 [preference for NAP strategy]

When it all comes down to dust

I will kill you if I must, 

I will help you if I can. 

 [preference for other strategies]

When it all comes down to dust 

I will help you if I must, 

I will kill you if I can.

Building voluntary social networks

To change things good people need to build strong voluntary social networks to make the existing coercive hierarchies obsolete. Fighting existing systems is good but so is creating new networks. Or maybe it is better.

Other people came to this conclussion before. Rand's fictional Galt's Gulch, Konkin's Agorism, libertarian enthusiasm for peaceful parenting and techniques like Nonviolent Communication and coaching are all about building non-coercive social networks. I think they are right. This is where the freedom begins.

And there is no other way of creating new voluntary networks and institutions than improving personal relationships first. Here are some examples of what I mean.

I worked on this chart for an hour so hopefully you like it. Hard to believe that there was a time when I treated anything remotely resembling management workshop materials as complete nonsense.

How to change things

This meme inspires me.

To make the state obsolete, we need the following new models:

• strong voluntary social networks -- to give people real safety nets
• robust moral systems -- to replace state supported dogmas as source of life wisdom
• efficient ways to protect against violence -- so people need less police
• fair dispute resolution mechanisms -- to replace the "justice system"
• reliable non-coercive defence against foreign states

Excuse me while I go and build some of the above.

Short-range NAP for individuals

A strategy optimal for a system as a whole is not necessarily one that is best for each individual. The prisoner's dilemma is an example where the best strategy for individuals is one detrimental from a global perspective.

In the same way the Non-Aggression Principle being optimal by some global criteria (economic efficiency, Universally Preferable Behaviour) does not necessarily imply its universal superiority for individuals. The example of Prince Harry - and other members of the political class - is the case in point.

In reality most people are not anti-NAP, they just follow a short-range version of it. They limit non-aggression to friends, family, clients, trading partners, friend's friends etc. Hence they support programs which benefit their immediate social network at the expense of other people. 

A world where individuals follow a short-range NAP is divided into millions of often overlapping and relatively peacefully cliques with violence increaseing in relationships between people from different cliques. The simplified schematic borrowed from Animal Social Networks shows such world.

This is more-less what the real world looks like. Each clique represents one individual's social network connected with a short-range NAP. Violence may emerge where the cliques meet.

This is a state of things which the Voluntaryists oppose. 

But is it necessarily beneficial for all individuals to extend their short-range NAP to a full NAP and therefore eliminate all areas of violent conflicts? I have not seen empirical evidence that it is. Each individual needs to decide by themself which range of NAP serves their needs best.

Which type of violence is the state?

As Barack Obama said, a state is a legal monopoly on violence.

Well said. But which type of violence? There are four major types of violence: resource predation, process predation, monkey dance and group monkey dance. So which one is the state?

Let's look at the example of the American federal government.

I think we can safely discard the monkey dance option. At least in theory, a good policeman or soldier is expected to deeply regret that violence is "necessary" as he is applying it. His violent triumphs are not his own, but the state's.

So the people who call themselves "the state" must be something between resource predators (aiming at controling vitim's stuff and otherwise leave the victim free) and process predators (aiming at controlling the victim itself). Let's see where the major executive departments and agencies sit on the spectrum.

Pure resource predators

Department of the Treasury. That's an easy one to classify because they run the IRS. The video below shows that people operating the tax system think about it as a tool for efficient resource extraction from the population.

IRS is the enabler of all the predations of the government.

Department of Veterans Affairs. Takes money from one group of people and gives it to 
another group of people so a clear resource predator.

Department of Agriculture. As above.

Social Security Agency. As above.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. As above, except they take money from one group of people and give houses to another.

Both resource and process predators

Department of Homeland Security. Customs Service, which is a part of this department, is a resource predator like the IRS. Uniformed people telling others where they are allowed to live and how they must travel are process predators.

Department of the Interior. Their function is to manage selected natural resources. Their involvement in managing lives of the Native people seems like process predation.

Intended to be process predators but with a resource side-effect

Agencies in this category have an official mandate to be process predators. However their actions result in cartels which makes them enablers of resource predation.

Federal Reserve. Their objective is to coordinate productive efforts of the population using monopoly money.The wealth transfers they create as side effect makes them the champions of this category.

Department of Commerce. They collects data on people's productive activities to intelligently coerce them to achieve Department's aims. This is so process.

Department of Labor. As above

Department of Health and Human Services. They coerce people into using methods of medical treatment the Department prefers (including limiting access to medicines), which is a process predator thing to do.

Department of Transportation. They coerce people into using methods of transportation the Department prefers. Control of transport routes results in control of movement which is a form of process predation.

Pure process predators

Agencies in this category are not completely pure process predators, because they draw salaries from the federal budget and also they monopolise any useful services may render. They are also openly used as tools by resource predators (for example by enforcing tax laws). But the functions they perform are as close to process predation as it gets.

Department of Justice. They will prosecute you if the instruction say so, regardless if it makes any sense or makes anyone any money.

Department of Education. They do not run schools directly (its state level counterparts do). But the compulsory schooling they represent is a particularly ugly form of process predation because it applies to children.

Department of State. The executioner of foreign policy. Uses all available means to make people who live in designated locations behave in the way which serves other people's objectives.

Department of Defense. An extension of the Department of State so the same logic applies. It applies additional process predation during drafs when it enslaves people into the military. But even during "normal" times it applies a lot or process predation towards its own people. The video below shows what I mean.

Department of Energy. They produce nuclear weaponry so they belong to the same category as Department of Defense.


So overall, the American federal government is a half way house between a resource predator and a process predator.

The largest difference between different states on the planet is location on the resource / process predation scale. The best ones are limited to efficient resouce predation and run reasonably free economies with low taxation. The worse ones, like Pol Pot's Cambodia or North Korea, are more into pure process predation regardless of the economics of it.

Spooky amusement parks in people's heads

Discussing politics with a group statists is like walking through a radioactive jungle growing on top of a spooky amusement park. You can expect any half-baboon-half-diggerswing-half-zombie to jump at you from the depth of someones subconsciousness at any moment. Any crippled idea, any incorrect fact or non-fact, any logical fallacy and any creepy reaction are to be expected at any moment.

Here are some zombie-thoughts which flew in a discussion I had last night with my fellow students.

1. There is no such thing as the European Common Agricultural Policy.
2. Governments have no power over people (because it is really all about money).
3. But it was not the case 20 years ago. Back then governments and money had their proper role.
4. The more totalitarian a country the nicer its government employees (becuse they need to make up for their lack of legitimacy).
5. Chimp herds with a dominant alpha male are less violent and therefore we need a state.
6. All parasites benefit their hosts in some way (otherwise they would die out).
7. All people deserve to have equal access to wealth.8. North Korea is safer to live in than Switzerland.
8. Rape in a government prisons is not as bad as rape on the street and does not count as "danger".
9. Slavery in America in 1700s is very similar to poor working conditions in London today.
10. Chimp herds with a dominant alpha male are less violent and therefore we need a state.
11. People are evil by nature which is why they need to form governments.

I am not sure what I leaned from this, but here are some ideas:
- I do not enjoy it.
- If I really want to engage, it is better to drastically lower my expectations.
- These discussions need strong, active facilitation: focus, clear terminology, loop breaking, monitoring progress to make any sense.
- If I really want to to engage, next time I can try the Socratic method on one person instead of presenting my own ideas.
- If I really want to to engage, I should focus on the least crazy opinion.

Beyond NAP: intimacy

Intimacy is the state of being close to another person: emotionally, intellectually and physically. Intimacy is a social value which is not discussed a lot in writings of libertarians and anarchists. But intimacy is at least as important as NAP. Babies who do not experience it die. Grown ups who do not experience it wither.

Intimacy is related to NAP because NAP is generally necessary for intimacy. But it is not sufficient. Non-aggression is passive and intimacy is active. Ones behaviour and language can be completely NAP, but he may have no closeness with anyone. On the other hand many people who are a bit aggressive still manage to have intimacy with someone some of the time.

Here is a table showing what people who influenced me over the years think about the Non-Aggression Principle and about intimacy. For completeness, I also added a column for rationality.

The last row is what I currently think. I have not completelly made up my mind on many detals.

	Rationality (private)	Universal NAP (social)	Intimacy (social)
The pope and his crew	Good but faith is better	Good but does not apply to children. Also the need to defend some beliefs, serve in the army and help the needy triumphs non-aggression.	OK, but you should not have greater intimacy with anyone than you have with Jesus.
Murray Rothbard	Yeah, obviously, that's what intelligent people generally do.	People have a natural right to fully own themselves.	Not elaborated on other than in an (incorrect) observation that family is a small communism.
Ayn Rand	The foundation stone. Man's main tool of survival.	Good because violence negates reason and also there are no conflicts between rational men.	Admire great people and spend time with them. Have hot sex with them if they are opposite gender.
Ludwig Wittgenstein	We cannot think or articulate in any other way.	Not interesting philosophically.	Not interesting philosophically.
Stefan Molyneux	Equals thinking. No alternative available. Man's basic survival tool.	Good as the only universal ethics (universally preferable behaviour).	A great thing to achieve with your friends, lovers or family. Possible only with virtuous people.
My thinking now	We cannot articulate thoughts in any other way. Also man's main tool of survival.	1) required for intimacy 2) good amongst your social circle, people you directly interact with and people they care about BUT a) there are conflicts even between rational men (I disagree with Rand on this) b) no clear reason why every individual's ethics must be universal. It would be elegant and productive and if they did but moralities of different people can also conflict, like the morality of a lion and a gazelle do (so I do not agree with Molyneux on this)	A great thing to achieve with people. Different degrees possible with different people. Also man's secondary tool of survival.

Cab con

Last Thursday I was coming back home on a late train. I overslept my station and ended up having to return by cab. This is an analysis of what happened next from the perspective of the theory of verbal warning signals.

As I'm walking to the car, a stranger approaches me:

- "Can we do halves?" he asks. Premature introduction of the "we" is called "forced teaming".
- "Sure. Were you on the same train?" I ask.
- "Yes, I fall asleep."

Before getting into the cab:
- "I will need the cash so we need to stop at a cash machine," he informs me.

This is when I first thought that he will not pay his half of the fare. But I wanted to see what happens next. I think that such explicit comment is a perfect warning of a problem but not necessarily of violence.

Inside the car:
- "The quote was for one person, but since there is the two of you, I will need to charge you more," says the driver.
- "OK," I say.
- "Well, maybe you could give us a ride for free?" jokingly asks the stranger.  Dark or negative humour reveals true concerns of a person.
- "Haha," everybody laughs politely
- "Well, it was worth trying," he concludes.
- "Yes, no harm asking," says the driver.

While on our way:
- "So what made you take the last train?", I asked.
- "Something I should not be doing. I'll show you."  

He pulls his Black Berry and shows me a picture of a lady in red lingerie, my understanding is that she is a prostitute he has just visited. Giving too many details is a sign of a person concealing their true intentions.

The car stops next to a cash machine about half way to our destination. The guy gets off a spends about a minute at the mash machine. Then he shouts to the driver that his debit card did not work and we should continue without him.

This is how he breaks the contract with me and therefore steals my £5.

Verbal warning signals

In "Gift of Fear" Gavin de Becker writes that there are multiple behaviours, which verbally signal that an individual may become violent.

Here are some of them:

Forced teaming. This is when an individual starts referring to himself and you as "we" despite you not offering or consenting to becoming a "we" with him. A famous example is "We the people...".

Charm and niceness. "He was so nice" is a very common description given by a victim about perpetrator's behaviour before the attack.

Giving too many details. When people say the truth, they feel no need to back it with additional details.

Typecasting. This means verbal lowering of the social status of someone else through targeting their insecurity in a subtle way. It must appear to have been done incidentally, must be polite, and the edge must appear unnoticed by the attacker. 

Labelling is also a form of typecasting.

The purpose of typecasting is to get the victim to try to refute or live up to the label by behaving in a certain way. For example telling someone that "sometimes it is important to read between the lines" implies that the other person does not have the ability to understand the context of a conversation and can make them prove that it is not the case.

Interestingly typecasting is recommended as a pick up tool by the pick up artist Mystery. He calls it "negging". 

Typecasting is also hailed in "How to win friends and influence people" as  motivational tool. The author Dale Carnegie advises to "give the other person a fine reputation to live up to".

Loan sharking and unsolicited promise. Offering help which comes with explicit or implicit strings attached.

Discounting the word "no". A person who lets his "no" being discarded passes the test for a good victim. This process is called "an interview". This is one way in which victims are selected by process predators.

Mental inflexibility. A person can find it hard to adapt to changing circumstances or people. They can be attached to an idea in a rigid way or they can see themselves as lonely crusades of a cause.

Dark humour. Humour often reveals deep mental attitudes towards the world and people's true concerns. So dark humour can be a sign of a dark personality.

Hopelessness. Pessimism is a predictor of problems, including violence.


So how do these verbal signs fare as predictors of violence in real live?

The analysis of just the first 60 seconds of a random David Cameron's (prime minister of Britain) speech shows how common these violence signals are in the language of politicians.




00:00 -- forced teaming in the title "Let us deal with debt"
00:00 -- charm and niceness, this goes without saying.
00:12 -- forced teaming again
00:18 -- typecasting x7
00:44 -- loan sharking and unsolicited promise x2 or x4, depending how you count it

So to be fair to them, they do warn people of their traits. Unfortunately most people have the tragic ability to ignore these signals.

A counter example for NAP

It is possible that the non-aggression principle is not as universal as some people believe.

Here is an example of an individual for whom violating NAP seems to be working OK. Meet Prince Harry of Britain who basically violates NAP for living. First he parasites on the people who live in Britain by using the state to coerce them into supporting his lifestyle. And then he shoots at people overseas. (I do not have anything particularly against this individual. He is a just a representative of the political class whose face behind a monocular gun happened to greet me from a newspaper yesterday.)

At least superficially, violating NAP seems to be working OK for Prince Harry. Most of his life needs are being met: him, his family and friends are safe and secure, he has access to all the resources of the world, he has a nice lifestyle and can spend his time as he pleases. Or at least more so than other people can.

Perhaps habitually violating NAP makes him unhappy on some deeper level, but it is not necessarily so. Even if he understood the damage the state does, he might view the state the same way a farmer sees a goose force feeding pump -- as a tool of extracting resources from a different species.

Would Prince Harry be more happy if he stopped violating NAP? Would it increase his standard of living or gain more influence? Perhaps. After all Gandhi managed to achieve an enormous social position by being more NAP-friendly than others, so maybe this is a valid strategy for political persons. But equally well giving up privileges would be an awful idea for Prince Harry by any objective standard.

Or perhaps NAP is just not universally beneficial? Maybe it is wiser to only apply it to the people who one is vulnerable to i.e. the inner circle of friends, family and to be aggressive towards everybody else if it suits one? Most political people do that (knowingly or not) and it seems to be working well for them.

I find it hard to claim that no professional human parasite or predator benefits from violating NAP in some significant ways. But if some people can benefit from violating NAP, then:

• in what circumstances is it so?
• in what sense is NAP a "principle"?

Any answers -- please let me know.

Does NAP apply to language?

Our language carries a legacy of the authoritarian societies of the past. It has historically evolved to reflect what the ruling members of the society needed expressing: demands, dominance and intimidation. This language is still disconnecting people from each other today. This causes conflicts and makes the state grow.

If the anarchist evolution is going to happen through anarchistic means then the best step towards social change is to make room for more anarchy in our private social networks. This can be best achieved by applying the non aggression principle to these relationships.

I came across some good ideas for what this could look like in an excellent book by Marshall Rosenberg called “Non Violent Communication”. I do not believe Rosenberg is an anarchist but when reading his book, I could not stop thinking how deeply anarchistic his ideas are. He believes that linguistic violence leads to inefficient, unsatisfactory and unpleasant interactions. In extreme cases linguistic violence is a prerequisite for physical violence.

The most obvious form of violent language is making demands or telling people what they “must”, “should” or “are supposed to” do. The “must” is violent because it is an attempt to exercise authority and take away choice. Rosenberg believes that the “must” word was introduced by kings or other tyrants to allow them control their subjects. Without a “must” it would not be possible to give orders to soldiers or extract taxes from individuals. This word and its derivations are simply not used in non violent communication.

A similar example of aggressive language is giving uninvited judgement. For example saying “you made a bad decision” means that the speaker puts himself in a position of a judge of the behaviour of others and hence claims a position of authority. Claiming authority in this way is linguistic violence even if the judgement pronounced is positive.

Violence committed by the state goes unnoticed by the majority of people. They consider it a normal state of affairs. In a very similar way more subtle forms of linguistic violence escape most people’s attention.

One example of more subtle linguistic violence is labelling. It is easy to understand why labelling someone a “murderer” is the first step towards denying them empathy. The “murderer” becomes an abstract category. Everything he does or says can be from now on explained by him belonging to this category so there is no need to understand him as a person anymore.

But it might be less obvious that calling someone “a good programmer” can also be considered violent. One reason it is the case is because this means acting as a judge again. Another reason is that once someone is labelled “a good programmer” we start paying less attention to their actions. Hence the quality of the interaction with this person deteriorates.

A particularly violent form of labelling is making comparisons. Telling your son “you are a worse student than your friends” is likely to hurt him deeply. In addition to all ways in which labelling usually retards an interaction, making comparison will be perceived as unfair because the person being judged has zero control over other people, whose performance now contributes to his assessment.

I recommend Rosenberg’s book to anyone interested in reforming the way they communicate. Adopting a verbal non aggression principle makes inter human connections stronger and harder for the forces of social coercion to corrupt. And developing stronger and happier relationships with fellow men is a logical strategy for building a voluntary society.

I posted this text initially on the anarcho-capitalism-blog.