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

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

The Best of Walter E. Block