Free Style

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.’ “

Related posts

; })();