The importance of the non-aggression principle (NAP) of libertarianism

[Ronin Truth]

The importance of the non-aggression principle (NAP) of libertarianism

Walter E. Block

From: BF
Sent: Wednesday
To: walter block
Subject: Question about the NAP

Hi Walter,

I’m pretty torn, in a good way. Something I’ve come to really enjoy is reading points of view from different writers that are striving to achieve the Libertarian ideal. It’s not only helped me to hone my personal applications of Libertarian theory, but I think Libertarians who have taken the time to consider the philosophy in all of its possible applications have been challenged for the better.

All of this critical thinking has brought me to a new revelation. I don’t have a universal means to describe the Non Aggression Principle, as it would apply to all situations everywhere – at least while still calling this belief the Non Aggression Principle.

A principle is something that doesn’t waver, it’s constant. It’s why we describe someone like Ron Paul as principled, and why we wave off fair weather libertarians like Glenn Beck. A principle would be saying “Thou shalt not steal. Period. Ever.”. But it seems like the NAP comes with a lot of asterisks, otherwise we wouldn’t have all of the interpretations of it that we’re seeing right now.

(I know the NAP provides no justification for theft, unless “stealing your property back”, this was just an example.)

If we have to add asterisks to the NAP or go out of our way to define exceptions and proper applications, is it a principle at all? I read this and I know I’m probably splitting hairs, but it seems we should be describing the NAP as the NAI – the Non Aggression Ideal. We can ideally act in a way that doesn’t initiate aggression, but we’re imperfect humans that may inadvertently attack when we think we’re defending, in the literal or the metaphorical. Do you have a universal way to describe the NAP – whether describing initiating aggression or retaliating against aggression?

Here are some of my comments on the matter:

I define a violation of the NAP as when an individual or said Individual’s custodies (property, children, friends, guests, family, etc) becomes victim of an aggression greater than his own aggression. If I get shot at, I can escalate my own aggression to the point of shooting back. I can’t launch a missile at the shooters house and take out the shooter, his house, his family, and potentially his neighbors. This isn’t within bounds of the NAP, as I understand it. If it were, then Libertarians couldn’t object to much of the aggressive history of the United States (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, post 9/11 foreign policy, etc.), whether we toe the line of canonized history or not. I’m not sure if my definition of an NAP Violation was sufficient. My definition doesn’t account for an elderly woman getting mugged on the street, as an example. Said mugger may not be armed, but the elderly woman isn’t going to win in a contest of brute strength. I can’t argue that the elderly woman cannot use a knife, a pistol, or whatever means she chooses to defend herself when she’s clearly outmatched. Maybe Non-Aggression Principle is the wrong word for what Libertarians describe. Maybe it should be Non-Aggression Ideal. Or maybe my own interpretation of the NAP is the flaw.

Dear BF:

You make some excellent points. I am tempted to say that the more I think about this, the more it seems that libertarianism is not directly based upon the NAP. It says, do not initiate force or fraud against innocent people. But what of the guy who is about to commit suicide, and I grab him, and attempt to convince him not to do that. What about my libertarian concentration camp guard?

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for, and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1
These would appear to be serious asterisks (*) to the NAP.

However, on reflection, I want to resist this temptation to jettison, or, better, modify the NAP; change it to the NAI, in your terminology. Why? Because the NAP is still the core of our beliefs. It is a rights violation to kidnap the suicide person, a rights violation to be a Nazi concentration camp guard, even though, in both these cases, it is done for “good” reasons.

I still maintain that the essence of libertarianism is the NAP. But our punishment theory, is crucial. The NAP says, don’t be a criminal in the first place, don’t violate the NAP. But, if you do, on the rare cases we are tempted to add that asterisk, libertarianism has its crucially punishment theory.

I try to wrestle with these issues in greater detail than I can now discuss, in this article of mine:

Block, Walter E. 2015. “The trolley: a libertarian analysis.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XVII, No. 2

Best regards,

Walter

11:24 am on June 3, 2016 Email Walter E. Block

The Best of Walter E. Block

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ibertarianism/

[ProIndividual]

Theories that bring one to libertarian actions and stances are far less important than the conclusions they get from those theories or lack thereof, which brings them to actions or stances. I know amoralist libertarians (Stirner Egoists) who act in more libertarian ways and advocate more libertarian things than some self-proclaimed NAP adherents. Think of how many people who claim the NAP is the end-all, be-all are supporting Trump and many other horrid things. Oh wait...you think open border policy somehow violates the NAP (the state does, but not that policy per se)! I forgot who I was talking to...lol.

[Ronin Truth]

Theories that bring one to libertarian actions and stances are far less important than the conclusions they get from those theories or lack thereof, which brings them to actions or stances. I know amoralist libertarians (Stirner Egoists) who act in more libertarian ways and advocate more libertarian things than some self-proclaimed NAP adherents. Think of how many people who claim the NAP is the end-all, be-all are supporting Trump and many other horrid things. Oh wait...you think open border policy somehow violates the NAP (the state does, but not that policy per se)! I forgot who I was talking to...lol.

I've long seen a lot of the 'Golden Rule' and Kant's Categorical Imperative in the NAP.

[ProIndividual]

I would agree with you there...but don't see how that leads you to some of your conclusions about the NAP being an end-all, be-all litmus test for libertarianism or anarchism/voluntaryism, and also the border thing.

I have to remark, the man who formulated voluntaryism was published first in Ben Tucker's "Liberty" periodical, and Tucker was not only a market socialist, but was a voluntaryist himself. Further, he was a Stirner Egoist (an amoralist). So, this is good evidence the NAP is not the litmus test for libertarianism/voluntaryism/anarchism, AND that in fact you don't even need to believe morality exists at all to be one.

Libertarian thought has many ethical theories and even some amoralism, all of which come to very similar conclusions by very different methods/premises. The NAP is merely the most popular. I'm not hostile to the NAP, I just happen to like another theory better to get to basically the same conclusions (the only time we differ in calling something ethical or not is in circumstances with choice sets where there is no non-coercive choice, including coercions of nature and man alike).

But let me be clear...even though we may disagree as to what is unethical in those rare cases, both theories prescribe the same actions; the victim who was created must be paid restitution. The difference is merely theory...I don't believe you need to do something immoral necessarily to create a victim. We may agree on this with an accident, for example...but not when the issue at hand is purposeful in an extreme circumstance. But all that means is we act the same and advocate the same things, but simply call some acts differently on whether they are ethical or not. It's just how we label the action, not a difference in acting itself.

For example, most libertarians agree that it is unethical to steal food in a famine, as it violates the NAP, even if you exhausted every peaceful and voluntary means to keep from starving to death. Most also agree they would steal to live. They also agree the victim must be paid restitution. I agree with all but the part that labels it unethical. I don't think self preservation is unethical. I don't think stealing insulin to save a diabetic child's life is unethical either, if all other voluntary methods have been tried and failed. You would disagree, given the NAP. That's cool...because despite that disagreement, we would both say, regardless of whether it is ethical or not, that the victim was created and needs to be remunerated. There's no difference in practice, just theory that brings us to the practice.

I don't know if we differ in how much restitution is owed, but I also believe, via my theory, that stealing for fun should carry a higher restitution obligation and a deeper reputation bruising than if you stole out of necessity as explained above. We may or may not agree on that nuance of law in practice...not sure.

[Ronin Truth]

I would agree with you there...but don't see how that leads you to some of your conclusions about the NAP being an end-all, be-all litmus test for libertarianism or anarchism/voluntaryism, and also the border thing.

I have to remark, the man who formulated voluntaryism was published first in Ben Tucker's "Liberty" periodical, and Tucker was not only a market socialist, but was a voluntaryist himself. Further, he was a Stirner Egoist (an amoralist). So, this is good evidence the NAP is not the litmus test for libertarianism/voluntaryism/anarchism, AND that in fact you don't even need to believe morality exists at all to be one.

Libertarian thought has many ethical theories and even some amoralism, all of which come to very similar conclusions by very different methods/premises. The NAP is merely the most popular. I'm not hostile to the NAP, I just happen to like another theory better to get to basically the same conclusions (the only time we differ in calling something ethical or not is in circumstances with choice sets where there is no non-coercive choice, including coercions of nature and man alike).

But let me be clear...even though we may disagree as to what is unethical in those rare cases, both theories prescribe the same actions; the victim who was created must be paid restitution. The difference is merely theory...I don't believe you need to do something immoral necessarily to create a victim. We may agree on this with an accident, for example...but not when the issue at hand is purposeful in an extreme circumstance. But all that means is we act the same and advocate the same things, but simply call some acts differently on whether they are ethical or not. It's just how we label the action, not a difference in acting itself.

For example, most libertarians agree that it is unethical to steal food in a famine, as it violates the NAP, even if you exhausted every peaceful and voluntary means to keep from starving to death. Most also agree they would steal to live. They also agree the victim must be paid restitution. I agree with all but the part that labels it unethical. I don't think self preservation is unethical. I don't think stealing insulin to save a diabetic child's life is unethical either, if all other voluntary methods have been tried and failed. You would disagree, given the NAP. That's cool...because despite that disagreement, we would both say, regardless of whether it is ethical or not, that the victim was created and needs to be remunerated. There's no difference in practice, just theory that brings us to the practice.

I don't know if we differ in how much restitution is owed, but I also believe, via my theory, that stealing for fun should carry a higher restitution obligation and a deeper reputation bruising than if you stole out of necessity as explained above. We may or may not agree on that nuance of law in practice...not sure.

Whatever it takes to float your boat.

I just most usually strongly prefer as simple as possible in order to minimize misunderstandings and weasel room.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

[ProIndividual]

But simplicity for simplicity's sake can be its own vice. Some things, like ethics, can be very complex. However, we agree the way in which we deal with victims is pretty straightforward. And it isn't just my boat it floats...it is boat of many of the greatest writers in voluntaryist history.

[Ronin Truth]

But simplicity for simplicity's sake can be its own vice. Some things, like ethics, can be very complex. However, we agree the way in which we deal with victims is pretty straightforward. And it isn't just my boat it floats...it is boat of many of the greatest writers in voluntaryist history.

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

Lawyers love complexity.

[r3volution 3.0]

The NAP is an abridgement of libertarian ethics, libertarianism in a nutshell.

There's more to libertarianism than the NAP.

Specifically, the term "aggression" must be defined, or the NAP is meaningless.

It cannot be defined as an "initiation of force," as that would make the preemptive use of force in self-defense aggression.

It must be understood as a property rights violation.

...which in turn means that there must be a definition of what property rights are, and how they are distributed (i.e. who owns what).

To wit, Basic Principles of Libertarian Ethics.

[Ronin Truth]

The NAP is an abridgement of libertarian ethics, libertarianism in a nutshell.

Which ones?

There's more to libertarianism than the NAP.

There's self ownership. What else?

Specifically, the term "aggression" must be defined, or the NAP is meaningless.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...09.xMv-2W6C2w0

It cannot be defined as an "initiation of force," as that would make the preemptive use of force in self-defense aggression.

Who made you shepherd?

It must be understood as a property rights violation.

Perhaps, but not necessarily.

...which in turn means that there must be a definition of what property rights are, and how they are distributed (i.e. who owns what).

The Philosophy of Ownership by Robert LeFevre (pdf)

To wit, Basic Principles of Libertarian Ethics.

Who wrote your gospel?

//

[r3volution 3.0]

Specifically, the term "aggression" must be defined, or the NAP is meaningless.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...09.xMv-2W6C2w0

That google search turns up the following definitions:

-hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
-the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a quarrel or war.
-forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests.

That's totally inadequate, since the terms used in the definitions are not clearly defined.

Different people can have different ideas of what constitutes "hostile or violent behavior" or "provocation," etc.

To make the NAP meaningful, aggression must be defined is a totally unambiguous way, such that there is no room for interpretation.

Defining it as a property rights violation (and in turn clearly defining what that is, as I did in the linked thread), accomplishes that.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND that I'm not criticizing the NAP, I'm just saying it should be stated more clearly than is usually is?

It cannot be defined as an "initiation of force," as that would make the preemptive use of force in self-defense aggression.

Who made you shepherd?

I didn't make the rules of logic, Ronin, I just enforce them.

If initiation of force is aggression, then preemptive use of force for the purpose of self-defense is aggression.

Yet that is not the libertarian view, is it?

Therefore, "initiation of force" is not a good definition of aggression.

It must be understood as a property rights violation.

Perhaps, but not necessarily.

How would you define aggression?

[Ronin Truth]

That google search turns up the following definitions:

-hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
-the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a quarrel or war.
-forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests.

That's totally inadequate, since the terms used in the definitions are not clearly defined.

Different people can have different ideas of what constitutes "hostile or violent behavior" or "provocation," etc.

To make the NAP meaningful, aggression must be defined is a totally unambiguous way, such that there is no room for interpretation.

Defining it as a property rights violation (and in turn clearly defining what that is, as I did in the linked thread), accomplishes that.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND that I'm not criticizing the NAP, I'm just saying it should be stated more clearly than is usually is?

I didn't make the rules of logic, Ronin, I just enforce them.

If initiation of force is aggression, then preemptive use of force for the purpose of self-defense is aggression.

Yet that is not the libertarian view, is it?

Therefore, "initiation of force" is not a good definition of aggression.

How would you define aggression?

http://voluntaryist.com/lefevre/aggr...l#.V13HohIRESU

[r3volution 3.0]

...have a nice day Ronin.

[Ronin Truth]

...have a nice day Ronin.

You too.

[ProIndividual]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

Lawyers love complexity.

So, engineering is a hustle? How about anatomy? Cryptography? How about computer science?

Come on man, you can do better than overly simplistic black and white thinking.