6. Despotic definition of property rights
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.’ “
1 comment
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-stupid/ […]