North Korea: The Faultline of the NAP

North Korea: The Faultline of the NAP


Regardless of what ideology one ascribes to, what candidates one believes in, one’s level of involvement in politics, etc…, one fact has become abundantly clear under the Trump administration. North Korea is more belligerent, more bold, and more capable of killing millions of people with white hot nuclear flame than ever before. Aside from UN Economic Sanctions that are unenforced by the only countries that actually have ever participated in trade with the DPRK, nothing has been done to deal with this. Libertarians are not helping.

Libertarians, Minarchists, and Anarchists have a possibly one core value shared by every branch unconditionally-the Non Aggression Principle. This simple (yet vague) principle is what makes a libertarian or anarchist society even remotely possible. In a society with limited to nonexistent government, the only thing defending property rights is a shared moral code that says “if it’s not yours, don’t touch it without consent”. Unfortunately, this principle only works when applied by everyone involved in the society.

North Korea, frankly, doesn’t give a damn about the NAP.

So how do we reconcile our core values with the fact that a hostile foreign nation wants to destroy us in a raging inferno of death and destruction? Simply, we don’t.

North Korea is a situation in which there are a few irrefutable facts. Their nuclear capability is growing, their aggression is increasing, and their boldness is less and less tied to their actual strength and more to delusions of grandeur experienced by a ruler with no concept of how much he is playing with fire. The evidence points towards one outcome and one outcome only; eventually, we will be forced to fight them. If we wait until they have a full nuclear arsenal, millions of people will die.

So we face a difficult decision. Do we commit to the NAP and hope for the best, or do we accept that, like all ideologies, ours has its faults? Given what is at stake, it seems that the only viable option is to temporarily reject the NAP and give a final ultimatum to the people of the DPRK. Either they depose Kim, or we do it for them. We have the capability to do so without extensive loss of life on our side, and we may be witnessing the last days of our unparalleled supremacy over them. Because when both sides can destroy the world in minutes, it doesn’t matter if one side can do it seven times over. All that matters is that one side is willing to do it once.



Latest Stories

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


  • James
    September 15, 2017, 9:45 pm

    The NAP may be central to deontological libertarianism, but it is not central to consequentialist libertarianism. Also, the NAP—which was largely formulated by Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard in the 20th century—is not central to classical liberalism, which predates them by about 250 years.

  • Barry Fitzgerald
    September 15, 2017, 10:15 pm

    Apply that principal to the USA’s involvement in Asia and the rest of the world for that matter. North Korea has not attacked anyone in over 50 years, Check the record of the USA in the last 50 years.

  • Wesley Bruce
    September 16, 2017, 12:27 am

    The basic problem of NAP is that you can never really know who fired first. Every criminal thinks he is taking back stuff that was somehow taken from him somehow or is his by rights. The DPRK is no different. It sees all of Korea as stolen property and all capitalism to be a crime world wide. That is one reason why NAP while valid is insufficient.

  • Wesley Bruce
    September 16, 2017, 12:35 am

    North Korea has 100000+ artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and a few other smaller cities. Taking out the north would not be a matter of taking him out “…without extensive loss of life on our side, …” And he would fire on Japan with missiles, sub based weapons and any surviving ships. Yes he would only get to fire 10% of those guns and missiles but that first volley would kill millions in Korea and Japan. Aidan you need to study warfare before saying such things.

  • max
    September 28, 2017, 4:31 pm

    The NAP allows self-defense also if threatened, not only when subject of initiation of violence. So much for your piece.

    Now, anybody that thinks that a minarchist follows the NAP, does not know what he is talking about.

    Anyone that thinks that it is obvious the NK is threatening the US and not the other way around does not know history.

    And anybody that speak of “nation”, and use a collectivist “we ought” is fundamentally a statist.

    Kid, go back to your studies, you already wasted too much of other people time. Or keep writing here, and see your and this web-rag reputation go down in flames.