Could the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) be amended?

Question

Could the NAP be amended to better suite a business or individual? (leading to corruption) I am imagining the NAP to be a pamphlet or document, much like the US Constitution, which is amended.

Would we see anything like this IF a people indoctrinate this idea into their society?

(I am not an "Anarcho"-Capitalist, nor do I believe in the NAP)


edited by dot to correct the given tag

Comments

a. hyphenating the words will give you a single tag, which is presumably what you wanted (i doubt searches for "non" will be helpful).
b. i don't know what NAP is, and your question neither explains it nor inspires me to go find out.
c. if you're not interested in NAP, why do you care about this topic? why do you want people to talk about something you don't care about?
d. why are you talking about either the constitution, or "indoctrination" on an anarchist website?

perhaps someone will answer this, but i would need more context to do so.

---

Just to answer b. - the NAP is 'aggression is inherently illegitimate', it's parroted endlessly by yellow anarchists as an axiomatic defense of property rights, and it's often their immediate defense when someone accuses them of not really being anarchists (the number of times i've seen something like "the core principle of anarchism is non-aggression" is more than i can count with my fingers).

---

Apologize for the tag mistake. New to this. I figured if you have ever came into contact with an AnCap, you would have known what the NAP is.

---

no need to apologize. you can edit the tags when you edit your question.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what the intention is here, or what there is to be gained by imagining the non-aggression principle as a document that could be 'amended', it's not really comparable to a constitution or other legislative document. Constitutions are legal frameworks that mediate power relations apposite to a particular institution; their legitimacy rests on principles, and they can be amended to in an attempt to better reflect the existing principles it rests on, or to reflect a new set of principles.

I suppose you could use the mediation of institutional power by constitutions as an analogy for the mediation of individual power by moral principles (maybe that's what your question is trying to do?), but it's kind of tenuous given that institutions have to legitimize both the way they exercise power and their very existence (constitutions and 'the rule of law' are an attempt to legitimise both by drawing a box and saying 'everything outside the lines is arbitrary, therefore everything inside is legitimate), where as individuals don't have to justify their own existence.

So to answer the original question, not really. Sure individuals could potentially twist the meaning of the non-aggression principle to justify their behavior towards others, but it's formulation is pretty straightforward, it was designed to leave no room for interpretation, so if an individual tried to 'amend' its meaning (attempt to use it to justify something in a contrived way) they'd probably just be called out for bullshitting.  Conversely, it's rather routine for politicians and the judiciary to reinterpret, stretch and change the meaning of the constitution to fit whatever principles they're asserting, and that's because they can do that with a constitution.

To be honest I think the NAP is already pretty entrenched in our societies' moral sensibilities, partly because of how much our societies' moral sensibilities rely on/are drawn from liberalism.  However, we also live in 'over-socialized' societies that demand a higher standard of morality in personal conduct than anyone can live up to, which goes some part of the way towards accounting for how the NAP can be entrenched in its 'un-amended' form in a society where no one actually follows it consistently.

Edited for clarity.

Comments

Thank you, I understand my question was a little unclear and you answered it perfectly. No Intentions, just a question. Maybe save myself a pointless debate with an Ancap. Thanks.

---

I'm glad that was helpful, By 'intention' I mostly meant purpose, and I'd think saving yourself from a pointless debate with an anacap qualifies ;)

---

"To be honest I think the NAP is already pretty entrenched in our societies' moral sensibilities, partly because of how much our societies' moral sensibilities rely on/are drawn from liberalism."

NAP: Thou shall not initiate the use of force

Try not funding the war in Iraq, or opting out of Social Security, or smoking the plant marijuana, or sell goods on your property without a government granted license.  People support initiating aggression in all aspects of life when they can have congress vote to do so using their police and/ or armies.  

Yes I'm an Ancap, and I am more than willing to have a discussion on Google Hangout or Skype if either of you would care to explain to me why Ancaps are incorrect.