Pedantic Questions on the Non-Aggression Principle.

[DarkWaters]

I have the following questions regarding the discussion of the Non-Aggression Principle on the following website: http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/at...objectivism.htm

1.) Consider the quote:

Fifth, according to objectivist philosophy, fraud is an indirect way to initiate the coercive use of physical force. Accordingly, objectivism views a fraud as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

I am not sure if I understand precisely how fraud violates the Non-Aggression Principle. I understand that fraud is bad because it manufactures an alternate reality. However, consider the case of executives of a business greatly exaggerating their profits to attract investors on a false premise. Clearly the executives are committing fraud and thus are morally reprehensible. However, how is this indirectly initiating force since the investors still choose to allocate their capital, albeit on a false premise? The investors are undeniably harmed, but I am experiencing difficulty in articulating how they have been subjected to the use of force.

2.) My next question concerns the following excerpt from the same website:

It is interesting to note that libertarians consider the Non-Aggression Principle to be axiomatic: they typically refer to it as the "Non-Aggression Axiom". This is arguably reflective of the libertarian perspective that the value of freedom is self-evident.

Could someone please elaborate on this for me? I understand the difference between a principle and an axiom, but I am not quite sure why objectivists consider the aforementioned statement to be a principle and what is (are) the source(s) of the libertarian regarding of the aforementioned statement as an axiom.

If I am not mistaken, I think the objectivist line of reasoning goes something like the following:

Observation I: Man is a rational being.

Observation II: Man survives primarily from thinking more than anything else.

Observation III: Thus, as a result of the initiation of force from one man to another, the victim is prevented from using his own rational judgement, possibly putting his well-being in jeopardy.

Observation IV: One should never sacrifice others for himself (the notion of sacrifice should inherently exclude circumstances when one is defending oneself in various circumstances).

To reiterate, these questions are pedantic but I nevertheless wish to reassert my understanding of objectivism.

Thanks!

[Groovenstein]

However, consider the case of executives of a business greatly exaggerating their profits to attract investors on a false premise. . . . The investors are undeniably harmed, but I am experiencing difficulty in articulating how they have been subjected to the use of force.

When you make an exchange, you do it on certain terms. It is your assent to those terms that makes an exchange, well, an exchange. (Talking about a voluntary exchange would be redundant.)

Would you give up your money under any circumstances? I would not. So when I talk to someone about giving them my money, we can discuss the terms. I then can consent to them taking ownership of my money in exchange for the agreed upon item for the agreed upon terms, or I can not consent.

In deciphering the terms of a deal, however, certain representations will need to be made. Say I go in to buy a lawn mower. I ask the salesman, "Does this lawnmower work?" If he says no, then why would I buy it? If he says he doesn't know, then I ask what happens if it doesn't. If he says it's at my own risk, then my risk is one of the terms of the bargain. If he says yes, then it working becomes a part of the bargain.

Basically, you have two alternatives. One is you can allow people to rely (when reasonable) on representations in forming their consent. The other is that nobody is allowed to rely on anything, because the duty to investigate even affirmative misrepresentations falls on the buyer.

It is important to note also that consent does not equal, "Well, if I had known that, I wouldn't have bought it!" At that point the question becomes one of who assumed the risk of noninformation. In other words, at what point is it incumbent upon the seller to disclose defects? Should he have to disclose known defects? What about known "defects" that would only be defects for a miniscule percentage of buyers? What if he happens to know that the buyer with whom he is dealing happens to be part of that miniscule percentage? Who assumes the risk of unknown defects? For example, if an orange happens to contain some deadly spore that neither buyer nor seller could discover, who took that risk? What if the seller could have discovered the existence of the spore with minimal precautionary measures? Is it fair to say that someone selling an item of food makes an implied warranty that it is not poisonous?

In other words, read Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

But seriously, I know this won't answer your questions entirely, but it should provide some useful talking points for the discussion.

[KendallJ]

I like to think of it metaphorically as being held up at "lie-point" instead of gun point.

The basis for both is that you must use reason to survive.

A stick-up man makes you give up something when your reason would not allow it, by threatening force.

A con man makes you give up something when your reason would not allow it, by faking reality.

Both are examples of someone interferring with your use of reason, and hence with your ability to survive.

[DavidOdden]

One thing that I feel compelled to point out is that Rand never wrote of such a thing as a "non-aggression principle", so as such you aren't really asking a question about Objectivism, but rather you're asking about that web page and some ideas that have to do with Objectivism. Let's see what Rand did actually say (VOS p. 130, "The Nature of Government"):

• "A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner's consent, under false pretenses or false promises. Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury."
  

This then ties in to your second question, since NAP is in fact not a "principle of Objectivism". (In contrast, the statement "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition" is a principle of Objectivism (see ITOE p. 9)).

As to an authoritative statement that libertarians hold NAP to be axiomatic, I think that is too strong a statement, because is implies that there is a degree of coherence to libertarianism that actually does not exist. Libertarianism is not a philosophy, so some libertarians might hold that this is an axiom, others might hold that it derives from god or some similar spiritual source, and some might simply not think about the status of that statement in terms of their day to day actions. For example, if you look at the LP webpage, there really is nothing that resembles a "principle", they simply have a list of positions. However, Rothbard, one of the more philosophically-inclined libs did say '"The Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."' (For a New Liberty).

[hunterrose]

When you make an exchange...

I was going to add to DarkWater's question by asking how is fraud an initiation of force, when lying is not.

But you answered both quite well