Human motivations and the NAP

Just a quick hit here - A follow up to an earlier post about the non-agression principle.

I am listening to Gary Chartier's videos at C4SS "Introduction to Anarchy"

http://c4ss.org/content/2025

In lecture 1c we're kicking off with the source book's description of human motivations. The Tannehills derive their theory of human liberty and self ownership from being alive.

Chartier goes into other human movtivations. "A Sense of Wonder", a need to conect with other human beings, an so on.

I'd reached a similar conclusion to the Tannehills myself without realizing it. I said "Don't kill me," is essentially a universal human value.

That idea was shot down by Dennnis Washburn who pointed out that some people do want to be killed. There was even a case where a man sold his body to another person on E-Bay, in order for the buyer to eat it.

Now, in Physics, if there's so much as a single exception to your theory, it means your theory is incomplete, or flat out wrong. When the apple falls up into the sky, it means your whole "gravity" idea goes into the garbage and you start over.

I don't think you can hold human behavior to that sort of all-or-nothing standard, because humans are very complex critters. There are more interconnections in the neurons of your brain than there are Stars in the Milky Way Galaxy - that means simulating your mind is more complicated than simulating 400 billion stars, planets and what-not all elese orbiting each other.

Looked at that way, the exceptions aren't surprising. The fact that we're so similar in mind set is absolutely stunning.

-*-

I think that the sense of wonder is of a different CLASS of human thought, emotion and action than "Don't commit aggression"

"Don't Commit Aggression" is a negative right - it defines something YOU have, by defining an action I might take as wrong. You have a right to remain intact, unmolested, unassaulted and so-on. You belong to you. Our language is set up so that "Don't Commit Aggression." is an easier formmulation of that idea.

That idea is a fundamental restriction on my actions. That idea is the foundation of millions of specific cases and development.

Your sense of wonder is not capable of violating any of my ownership of me. If your sense of wonder motivates you to aggress against me (Hard to imagine) then the sense of wonder is not the primary driver - your sense of wonder informs your desires, your desires frame a goal - and if that goal is across my boundaries - then you must decide. Will you agress to acquire your goal?

Maybe if I owned mountain top property, and you trespassed to get to a good place for viewing with a telescope...

See the sense of wonder cannot trespass - your awareness that your goal is blocked by my rights puts you in the position to chose or eschew agression.

(BTW, if I ever do get mountain top property with good astronomy viewing, talk to me. I'm not a dick. Maybe, if you and your astronomy club are willing, we can flatten out a space and put a BBQ there, make it a more comfortable place)

-*-

My point is this, there's the aggression/no-aggression point of choice - and then there's EVERYTHING else.

All other human motivations and experiences are. IMHO, of a different class of thing.

So if discussing ethical behavior - "Don't Commit Aggression" becomes the root. "Because no one wants to be killed, beaten or ganked." is the motivation behind that root.

Nothing else needs to be there.

If I tell you a funnny story for free, it's beccause You are amused by the story, and I enjoy having an audience. We are making an exchange outside of money or the calulation of marginal utility.

"Don't commit aggression" does NOT limit all human behavior to a economic calculations. It simply sets a bar, a limit at one end of human interaction. That still leaves about anything else we can invent as reasons for and products of our interactions.