Crispin and the Non-Aggression Principle


Here is a Reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that the Non-Aggression Principle is not axiomatic.  It is a great guideline, but be careful saying that it can never be permissible to break it.  By treating the Non-Aggression Principle as an axiom, one runs into dilemmas that may otherwise be solved by virtually universally acceptable action.

This of course does not justify the existence of the state no matter how many opponents of libertarianism would like to believe it.

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

[…] A number of libertarians like to take a position that the non-aggression principle is axiomatic, so taking that logic through, they will hold a strict position that if there is no victim, there is no crime. As a general rule of thumb, I agree with the “no victim, no crime” sentiment, but anyone can come up with a number of situations demonstrating that this single idea is insufficient. […]


[…] I completely agree with this commentary on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) except that it creates a flaw in my argument.  My arguments do not hinge on any of what is critiqued.  The only time I mentioned the NAP in my rebuttal to Wind was when I said that generally the only rules that businesses ask you to adhere to when you patronize them is the NAP.  As a matter of fact, I have consistently argued that the NAP is not axiomatic. […]