6 Reasons Why the Non Aggression Principle is Stupid

6 Reasons Why the Non Aggression Principle is Stupid

4. Keep aiming that gun at me, I’m still gonna stand here

hamiltonburrduel

Libertarians need to understand that we do not live in a vacuum, there is a majority of the world that does not acknowledge the NAP, therefore we must have a political and individual philosophy that conforms to reality:

“…to borrow an example from David Friedman, what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five? Of course, almost everything we do imposes some risk of harm on innocent persons. We run this risk when we drive on the highway (what if we suffer a heart attack, or become distracted), or when we fly airplanes over populated areas. Most of us think that some of these risks are justifiable, while others are not, and that the difference between them has something to do with the size and likelihood of the risked harm, the importance of the risky activity, and the availability and cost of less risky activities. But considerations like this carry zero weight in the NAP’s absolute prohibition on aggression. That principle seems compatible with only two possible rules: either all risks are permissible (because they are not really aggression until they actually result in a harm), or none are (because they are). And neither of these seems sensible.”

The threat of violence is not always cut and dry, so where does the line get drawn? If someone is pointing a gun at you, must you wait to defend yourself?

  • 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