×

0
0

Can advertisements violate the NAP? (self.Anarcho_Capitalism)

submitted by Sharkictus

I was watching Killing Us Softly in my Social psych class, and I caught myself wondering if impossible ideals ads which harm culture and women's self-esteem may or not violate the NAP. They aren't overtly coercive, but on the unconscious level they arguably are coercive.

all 13 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]communeofonewhere's my spencer heath flair?! 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I was watching Killing Us Softly in my Social psych class, and I caught myself wondering if impossible ideals ads which harm culture and women's self-esteem may or not violate the NAP.

cultures do not have rights, so whether something harms a culture, whatever that means, is not a question relevant to matters of law.

putting aside the broad generalization in your claim that impossible ideal ads harm women's self-esteem, the plain fact of the matter is that there is no right to integrity in your self-esteem. the very idea would render freedom of expression and freedom of association coercive.

They aren't overtly coercive, but on the unconscious level they arguably are coercive.

they aren't any kind of coercive, overt or otherwise.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

the very idea would render freedom of expression and freedom of association coercive.

This is a very important point. If you can argue that ads can somehow harm the subjective feelings of individuals, then it could be argued that everything anyone experiences that is not positive is also harmful and coercive. Does your coworker dress better than you? Better lock his/her ass up because it's harming your self esteem.

Another thing to consider is that if harming your self esteem or psyche or whatever violates the NAP and you should recompensed, then don't you owe something to someone who boosts your self esteem?

[–]janelkeman 2 points3 points  (3 children)

It isn't coercion; it's persuasion.

If you want to be the only person who gets to change your own mind, you need to have your wits about you. The mind has to be defended from within, or else you aren't living your own life - the person who would 'protect' you would have to control your mind for you, and then you might as well not exist - you'd just be a thought in someone else's head; a trivially minor character in someone else's dream.

You have to be awake to lead your own life. To awaken is to recognize the sheer absurdity of the preceding dream sequence. A marketing professional trying to pimp some trinket - who doesn't even know that you exist - has absolutely no authority to speak to your worth. The very notion is laughable.

[–]Sharkictus[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Then how does work with children then? By definition they don't have wits of their own?

This was just more a thought exercise, considering how aggressive advertising can be, and pliable the human mind is (especially younger ones), I was wondering how that meshes with the whole NAP.

[–]janelkeman 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Parents/guardians assume responsibility for their children to the extent that the children can't assume responsibility for themselves.

Gently acclimatizing a child to the harsh realities of the world such that they will be prepared to handle it on their own when you're gone is the essence of parenting. A toddler is likely to want everything that's ever marketed vaguely in their direction. They are likely to ask you to buy it for them. They are likely to kick up a stink when you say no. That's just one of the thousands of unpleasant experiences you have to get through with your child if you choose to become a parent.

Children will grow up to become gullible, dependent morons with completely unrealistic expectations if they are over-sheltered. That does them real harm in life - feeling a little bit of frustration and disappointment when they're a kid does not.

[–]Sharkictus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aye.

Personally, my hypothetical kids are going to be cynical and hard nosed about everything. I may shelter them bit a certain, but they'll get full blown exposure to others things. Like exactly how evil humanity can be.

[–]dp25x 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some folks subscribe to a version of the NAP which includes fraud on equal footing with force. Many ads seem to have elements of fraud in them, and so might not pass the NAP test

[–]KissYourButtGoodbye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

harm culture

What does this even mean? It purports some objective ideal of what the culture should be - that doesn't exist.

women's self-esteem

A woman, like any individual, can choose whether or not to pay attention to advertisements. One's "level" of self-esteem is a choice, not a condition. Especially when the sensory input that creates the feeling can literally be turned off at will.

on the unconscious level they arguably are coercive

Coercion is the use of violence or the threat of violence to force a person to do something. "Making someone feel bad" is not coercion, whether it be a low self-esteem, shaming "immoral" behavior, ostracization, or any other voluntary interaction.

The Galbraithian position on advertisements, which claims that advertisements can essentially force you to buy or sell something, or behave in certain ways, has been thoroughly debunked on both an economic and psychological level. Most advertising "tricks" don't actually work - what does is showing that a product fulfills a desire that the consumer already held.

[–]thisistheperfectname 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An advertisement that is fraudulent can, since fraud enters one into a contract to which he or she did not agree. Other than that, no. You have no right that forces others to walk on eggshells around you.

[–]psycho_trope_icVoluntaryist -1 points0 points  (3 children)

So far as I understand it, only economic coercion is exempted by the NAP, so if you can convince a neutral third party that A caused B damage (through aggression) then means by which the damage was caused (micro-aggression or whatever your preferred term for this kind of thing is) does not really matter to determining restitution.

I think you would have trouble proving harm from a specific ad. So far as I understand these things, it is not a single ad that is the problem, but a large number of them and a near constant reinforcement by the background noise of living in society. So, this is probably one of those cases where 'if everyone is guilty then no one is.'

[–]Sharkictus[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Doesn't the last line of reasoning justify a lot of bad actions? One could use it to justify the state...

It's not a reason, IMO a consistent ancap should use.

[–]psycho_trope_icVoluntaryist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My last line does not justify anything other than not attempting to pursue damages from all of society for things which are no individuals fault.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The NAP isn't a moral code really, it's justification for private property and not much else...