6 Reasons Why the Non Aggression Principle is Stupid

6 Reasons Why the Non Aggression Principle is Stupid

2. Death to litter bugs?

Litter

In the age of social justice, trigger warnings, and the “devastating” effects of hurt feelings on the more sensitive likes of our Western civilization (meanwhile ISIS is crucifying children, but we need to make sure a boy who dresses up as a girl can get changed in the girls locker room of his school, right?), it seems that aggression knows no bounds. However, many libertarians fail to come to a conclusion on where the infringement of life, liberty, and property ends. Zwolinski manages to point out the fallacy of the common understanding of aggression under the NAP:

“…Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world.”

  • 26
  •  
  •  
  •  
1 comment

Latest Stories

1 Comment

  • Nathan Larson
    March 18, 2017, 3:50 pm

    Driving isn’t usually regarded by anarcho-capitalists as “personal pollution” unless the person is in their own driveway. Rather, highway owners would be responsible for the pollution of their guests.

    Smoking is already prohibited in most public places under the theory that people have a right to not be assaulted by smoke. So to some extent, the NAP is already in effect.

    REPLY
  • 26
  •  
  •  
  •  
LIVE NOW! CLICK TO VIEW.
CURRENTLY OFFLINE