The Non-Aggression Principle Is Realistic and Not an Abstract Concept
In his book the Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard sets out the links between individual liberty, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. Rothbard’s explanation of property rights as the essence of liberty has greatly influenced the libertarian understanding of the NAP, but there is often a great deal of confusion as to what amounts to an act of aggression. As David Gordon has pointed out, some libertarians have gone so far as to say that the NAP should be rejected altogether for having “morally unacceptable implications.”
One mistake many libertarians make is to suppose that theoretical principles can provide a complete resolution for difficult cases, in the sense that we should be able to ascertain—just by studying the NAP—whether it has been violated in specific cases. Gordon points out that this overlooks the role of other considerations, such as social conventions and legal norms, in resolving real world disputes. The “morally unacceptable implications” that many libertarians find disturbing are the result of theorizing about the NAP without regard to the broader ethical framework within which Rothbard defends property rights. Rothbard’s theory of liberty is not just a philosophical or academic treatise based on a set of hypothetical problems. It is also a “system of libertarian law” designed as a foundation for “the truly successful functioning of what we may hope will be the libertarian society of the future.”
Rothbard’s analysis therefore takes into account the real-world context of crime and aggression. He defines an act of aggression as a violation of another’s liberty, and, importantly, sees liberty as an emanation of self-ownership and private property. He explains how these ideas are interlinked:
The key to the theory of liberty is the establishment of the rights of private property, for each individual’s justified sphere of free action can only be set forth if his rights of property are analyzed and established. “Crime” can then be defined and properly analyzed as a violent invasion or aggression against the just property of another individual (including his property in his own person).
In this context, he defines a crime as a violation of property rights. Thus, Rothbard defines “aggressive violence” as a situation where:
…one man invades the property of another without the victim’s consent. The invasion may be against a man’s property in his person (as in the case of bodily assault), or against his property in tangible goods (as in robbery or trespass). In either case, the aggressor imposes his will over the natural property of another—he deprives the other man of his freedom of action and of the full exercise of his natural self-ownership.
Rothbard’s explanation of the NAP clearly includes invasions of both person and property. But many people struggle to apply these principles in real cases. The first practical difficulty arises in relation to “mere” threats. Rothbard sees direct, overt, threats of invasion as equivalent to invasion because—as he sees it—the NAP is about the invasion of the person or property of another and depriving another man of his freedom to exercise his self-ownership and ownership of his property.
A violation of another man’s liberty may be committed by means of intimidation, or fraud, which Rothbard sees as “equivalent to the invasion itself.” Does this mean that any time someone feels (or claims to feel) “intimidated” that is the equivalent of an invasion? Of course not. Under the NAP, violence against another is only justified in self-defense, and we must therefore have recourse to the principles of self-defense in ascertaining whether an act of violence is aggressive or defensive. Rothbard holds that “defensive violence may only be used against an actual or directly threatened invasion of a person’s property, and may not be used against any nonviolent ‘harm’ that may befall a person’s income or property value.” Further, as Rothbard explains, in cases of direct threat of invasion, self-defense may be justified even before a physical act of violence has ye
Article from LewRockwell
LewRockwell.com is a libertarian website that publishes articles, essays, and blog posts advocating for minimal government, free markets, and individual liberty. The site was founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian political commentator, activist, and former congressional staffer. The website often features content that is critical of mainstream politics, state intervention, and foreign policy, among other topics. It is a platform frequently used to disseminate Austrian economics, a school of economic thought that is popular among some libertarians.
