For when you have pain in both your body and soul. Directions: Take two, and call me a few hours later to talk about how we don't hang out enough

The Non-Aggression Principle is Worthless when Those in Power Can Define Aggression published by Tylenol with MDMA
Writer Rating: 2.7500
Posted on 2017-05-07
Writer Description:For when you have pain in both your body and soul. Directions: Take two, and call me a few hours later to talk about how we don't hang out enough
This writer has written 8 articles.

The Non-Aggression Principle is Worthless when Those in Power Can Define Aggression

For when you have pain in both your body and soul. Directions: Take two, and call me a few hours later to talk about how we don't hang out enough

Article Rating: 3.0000

Politics Article by Tylenol with MDMA. Article Location: Earth or Extropia (44 Nysa)

   

One of the cornerstones of modern libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle. According to NAP.com, the non-aggression principle can be defined as “aggression (n.): initiation of a coercive relationship.” Or in simpler words: Don’t be a dick. On the surface, this seems like a pretty good principle. As long as we’re not harming others in any form, we should be free to do what we want. It’s the tiny sliver in the Venn diagram between Anarchism and Libertarianism. On a micro level, this works out fine.

              However, once an entity gets to a certain level of power, the non-aggression principle starts meaning less and less. There are going to be times that someone steps on someone toes and it’ll have to be worked out. Between two theoretically equal entities, they can work with a neutral arbiter to forge a compromise based on damages done and what will fix the situation. However, when one entity has more resources than the other, the balance of power goes haywire. The entity with more power has more resources. They can hire better lawyers, bribe arbiters, put more resources into undermining the standing of the weaker party. They can outbid resources they need and destroy them. The more powerful entity has the ability to define aggression, and there’s no libertarian solution that can fix that.

@TylenolwithMDMA

Note: I use the term entity because it can apply to an individual, corporation, or some other representation of power.

 

 

Additional Readings

Libertarianism against NAP

https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle

Review of Atlas Shrugged and Its Unrealistic Expectations of Libertarianism 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/atlas-shrugged/

   

Sources

http://nap.univacc.net/

Rate The Article

Article Rating: 3.0000

You did not rate this article yet.


Report Article

You have the right to stay anonymous in your comments, share at your own discretion.

Anonymous: 2017-05-07 06:51:34 ID:2037

But isn't the non-aggression principle based on people and not necessarily the justice branch of government? Libertarians will be the first to argue that the justice system is broken being that it is owned by a government entity. What would you prose as a better solution if not the non-aggression principle?

Tylenol with MDMA: 2017-05-07 07:28:35 ID:2039

I didn’t once include government in this. This is about the failures of the NAP as a concept. Once any entity has enough power, the NAP goes out the window and individuals lose as greater entities, whether they’re corporations or governments, reins supreme.

Anonymous: 2017-05-08 12:38:20 ID:2040

A court of justice is government. That is the justice branch of government.

Tylenol with MDMA: 2017-05-08 07:57:25 ID:2041

I think we're talking about two different things, let me see if I can rephrase things. In a libertarian society, how would two parties resolve issues if one of them violated the NAP against the other?

Anonymous: 2017-05-09 01:57:26 ID:2042

Through amicable interest would there be a peaceful method of resolution. It is through justice that you have violations of the NAP.

Tylenol with MDMA: 2017-05-09 02:40:39 ID:2043

So in a libertarian society, everyone is guaranteed to follow the NAP? So there's nothing like anti-social personality/sociopathy that violates social standards for personal gain?

Anonymous: 2017-05-07 06:51:34 ID:2038

But isn't the non-aggression principle based on people and not necessarily the justice branch of government? Libertarians will be the first to argue that the justice system is broken being that it is owned by a government entity. What would you prose as a better solution if not the non-aggression principle?

Anonymous: 2017-07-15 07:21:54 ID:2095

why would anyone ever trust an arbitrator that accepts bribes? if Underwriter Laboratories started taking bribes would anyone ever trust them again? then what company would pay to put a UL stamp on their products. corrupt arbitrators would be out of business quickly.

You may also like