6 Reasons Why the Non Aggression Principle is Stupid

6 Reasons Why the Non Aggression Principle is Stupid

6. Despotic definition of property rights

Somali soldiers stand by wreckage at the scene of a suicide car bomb attack that targeted a United Nations convoy, outside the airport in Mogadishu, Somalia Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2014. A Somali police officer says a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into a U.N. convoy near Mogadishu's airport, killing three people. (AP Photo/Farah Abdi Warsameh)

 Jefferson and Locke would be rolling in their graves if libertarians took the NAP as an absolute principle:

“Even if the NAP is correct, it cannot serve as a fundamental principle of libertarian ethics, because its meaning and normative force are entirely parasitic on an underlying theory of property. Suppose A is walking across an empty field, when B jumps out of the bushes and clubs A on the head. It certainly looks like B is aggressing against A in this case. But on the libertarian view, whether this is so depends entirely on the relevant property rights – specifically, who owns the field. If it’s B’s field, and A was crossing it without B’s consent, then A was the one who was actually aggressing against B. Thus, “aggression,” on the libertarian view, doesn’t really mean physical violence at all. It means ‘violation of property rights.’ “

  • 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