Human Iterations

(Some Particularly Concise Words)

The non-aggression principle is not an axiom. By the term "axiom" I more or less mean something that is self-evident and irreducible, a stand-alone principle that functions as an obvious starting point from which everything else springs. This is not to say that I don't advocate the non-aggression principle or do not think that it is important, but it is to say that I think that its treatment in this way, as an "axiom", is a serious mistake that has had the consequence of oversimplifying libertarianism and providing no basis out of which to stop it from fragmenting into a multitude of contradicting social philosophies.

Brainpolice FTW. Of course, speaking personally, I don't advocate the non-aggression principle, because I don't think it can be strongly derived from any non-arbitrary moral arguments. But it would be nice if more Libertarians were competent or introspective enough to be open to that discussion. All too frequently the NAP is pulled out of a hat to justify some random delineation between realms of acceptable and unacceptable action. And then any critique is countered on the most hazily inducted rule-utilitarian grounds that every possible non-NAP formulation of ethics = Stalinist Death Camps.