Where Does the Non-Aggression Principle Come From?Submitted by Micah68 on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 00:27
Anyone else here a fan of Red Ice Radio hosted by Henrik Palmgren out of Sweden? I stumbled on it a few years ago when he was talking with a guest about evidence of ancient European culture in far-flung places of the world, which was fascinating.
Anyway, today I was listening to him interview a guest you might know, Marc Stevens, who was coming from the 'anarchist/voluntarist' point of view that government is an irrational concept, which boils down to people telling other people what to do at the point of a gun, or using the circular logic that their code applies because their code says so.
I get where he's coming from, and I agree with much of what he said; but when it came to the portion where he dismissed the notion of God-given rights, as having no evidence for their existence, I couldn't bring myself to agree. I interpret the world around me to demonstrate that some things are self-evident in our consciences, reflections of a natural law that actually exists, transcendent over the material world.
What I found odd, though, was that he was very vocal about upholding the non-aggression principle, and in decrying violence, deaths in the Middle East, etc. as 'terrible', 'horrific', etc. This made me wonder -- where does he think the non-aggression principle comes from? Why does he speak about it as if it is a real principle that exists, a real reflection of right and wrong? Doesn't that contradict what he had otherwise said about people being delusional that there are actual, real rights that are founded in natural law? Also, on what basis can he decry violence as 'terrible', if there is no overarching principle that is real?
Anyway, I was curious what insights and explanations others here might have to offer to help me understand the thinking on these questions.
Where do you think the Non-Aggression Principle comes from?