-2 votes

Let's talk about Property Rights and Aggression

We own ourselves and our labor. Therefore, what our body and labor produce we own. To be rightfully owned is be acquired justly. Other than owning what we produce directly, we may justly come to own things via gift or trade. What we own we call our property.

What makes property, well property, is the just Right of owner(s) to solely determine how to employ it to their advantage. Though no one may justly deny the owner the use of property, the range of just uses in not limitless. Society as whole, comprised of individual sovereign property owners, does not permit one to violate the Property Rights of another. It does permit one to defend one's property from aggression, and it is by this mechanism that we may say that only the property owner who respects the Property Rights of all others may claim it for himself.

For the aggressor to restore this right to himself, the harm his actions may have caused must be sufficiently rectified in the eyes of the aggressed. We call this justice.

Therefore the Libertarian creed known as the Non-Aggression Principle states that all instigation of aggression is illegitimate. There is no moral ground from which aggression may stem. The aggressor may not lay claim to Property Rights to defend the instigation of aggression.

It's vitally important to define aggression in order to correctly ascertain when it has occurred. After all when it occurs retaliatory aggression is justified. Since the victim of aggression generally decides for himself if he has been aggressed upon, it's easy to see how the two sides of any altercation could both claim to be victims. Woe to anyone who feeling the victim lashes out unjustly.

There is of course the obvious forms of aggression; theft, murder, rape, and fraud.

But can there be aggression in idleness?

When contemplating the nature of aggression, I often ponder idleness in situations which seem to morally demand one’s participation. For instance, if a starving man begs me for food, and I have what I deem to be plenty, yet deny his request, have I aggressed against this man? If a man is drowning beside my boat and I refuse to come to his aid, despite no suspicion that doing so would jeopardize my own well being, am I not guilty of instigating aggression?

That there are shades of obligation in the scenarios mentioned above does not escape me. I am well aware that for liberty to prevail, the individual must be free to consider his own well being; to weigh the risk involved when rendering aid to another. There is no justice in coercing by force one to act to his own detriment. No one is morally obligated to risk his life to save another though such an act is most noble and stems from no other place but love of others.

The cases I am concerned with here are situations where one cannot truthfully assert that the perceived danger was sufficient to justify passiveness. To know with great certainty that failure to lend a hand will result in bodily harm or death to another, and yet choose to remain idle is akin to causing the harm by ones own hands.

Considering again the starving man, who I refuse to aid with food though I have enough to give 10 times the amount requested with no concern for my own ability to feed myself and family, I ask, is there a moral footing on which to stand in claiming that I may do with my property whatever I wish, even to the detriment of others? I know of no Libertarian who upon consideration of this scenario could answer yes. The evidence seems overwhelming to me that I am inclined to believe a poor starving man may be justified in any effort to procure my food by force, under the natural right of self defense. For if I have, with my idleness, instigated aggression – acted in a manor expected to contribute to the demise of another – have I not relegated my own property rights to the rubbish bin, and exposed myself to the possibility of just retaliation?

Do not construe my words here to imply a defense of moral relativism. I am not saying that theft is not immoral in all cases. I believe theft is always immoral. What I am presenting here is the idea that property rights are not violated when a man at deaths door takes by force after making every effort to prevent his end by appealing to the good nature of one who is nearby and burdened with plenty, only to have his most direct potential for rescue deny all moral obligation to render aid and act in a manor intended to ensure his demise.

Mises in “Human Action”, speaking of purposeful human action states that “…action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done.”

By this definition, idleness, carried out with the intention and expectation that acting so will likely allow harm to come to another, it must be considered aggression.

Rothbard states in “The Ethics of Liberty” something that seems to take quite the opposite stance. “…In the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.”

While the word legal lends me to believe that what Rothbard is saying is that no man should be legally compelled to act by threat of state punishment for any failure to do so. This I can agree with entirely. However, he is presenting a framework for ethical behavior, and on that ground alone, I presume that Rothbard would heartily agree that there is a moral obligation to rescue, but it is best left to the individual to determine when he can live with the consequences of being idle and when his character compels him to render aid.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So did you find your answer?

I thought this was an interesting article.


I guess the NAP was developed to make a form of morality independent of religion?

Another thought...

Most of the discussion has been about what constitutes aggression.

In my experience with libertarian thought, the more interesting and difficult questions involve property rights. In particular, what constitutes a valid claim to personal property from a moral standpoint.

I am very much a proponent of private property for the reasons we all (should) know, but I think it's still much harder to justify private property ownership than most people think.

Aside from the popular guideline of "first possession," there seems to have been little progress. I think I've discovered a few other guidelines which are briefly:

1. Any claim of property ownership which relies on an explicit or implicit claim of ownership of others is not valid. This seems obvious, but it includes property ownership which requires the maintenance of a state apparatus or other violation of the castle doctrine for enforcement---intellectual property, for example.

2. Property ownership does not give one a right of destruction. Labor belongs 100% to you, but enhancement of resources is in the eye of the beholder, and there are different ways labor can be combined with resources. Constructively, one can enhance fertility of soil or simply arrange natural resources for further use. This is distinct from destruction of resources in, for example, the burning of non-renewable fuels. Your labor, you have provided, but you have no claim on resources superior to future generations. You have not done anything to produce those resources, and the right of first posession is limited in this way.

3. With regard to land, property ownership is morally justified by preservation of resources and enhancement of fertility. This is an idea which actually goes back to the "freed" slaves of the 1870s who pointed out that they had a moral right to the property they worked rather than the massa sitting in the big house and holding the title. It rules out the current title system of land ownership. To elaborate, you are entitled to claim ownership of the land you preserve and from which you sustainably derive your existence.

Note that cutting down a tree in a forest is different from creating desertification. For example, did you know that Spain used to be forested? People were responsible for the fact that it is almost entirely desert now; essentially the only trees in most of Spain are olive trees. The native American (Indians) lived here for thousands of years without taking anything from you. These observations are significant.

Reading. With regard to the right of people to 100% of their labor but not to the unrestricted use of land, the populist "single tax" movement of the late 1800s is interesting. There are a couple books by Paul Gaston that cover this topic quite nicely. One is called "Women of Fair Hope," and the other is "Man and Mission: E.B. Gaston and the Origins of the Fair Hope Single Tax Colony."

If anyone wants to discuss these topics further, I'd be interested.

People are sometimes forced

People are sometimes forced into conflict with one another by situations. Situations where neither side can have the luxury of acting like an angel when they need to survive. These situations are rare of course. Social engineers place us in artificial conflict, but organic conflicts can and do arise.

What if your plane crashes in the Andes mountains and the only way for you to survive is to eat the body of someone that died in the crash. Their surviving family members have property rights over the body, but are their property rights going to stop you from doing what you have to for survival? Cannibals have reported humans taste like pork, btw, or your pork tastes like human. No wonder jews and muslims don't eat it, but I digress.

When it comes down to it, everyone is doing what they "perceive" to be in the best interests of their own survival. Do your property rights trump a person's need to survive? The outcome is going to be determined by who can swing a club the best.

Property ownership is actually determined by whether or not you can keep it, that is the reality of life. The even greater reality is that you cannot own anything, yer gonna die, even if you are one of those idiots that thinks he is going to download his soul into a MacBook pro. There will be no U-Haul behind your hearse.

Since no one is going to keep their property after death, and there is potential supernatural penalties for greed, is it logical to worry about accumulating much stuff? It only feeds your ego about how awesome you want to believe you are.

NAP says all aggression is

NAP says all aggression is illegitimate. All these scenarios say otherwise. Either:
1. NAP is wrong and in some situations and aggression can be legitimate = moral relativism = no absolutes = the situation dictates what is moral (note: Rothbardian Libertarianism is based on NAP so it's wrong too)
2. NAP is right and it's always wrong to violate property rights of others even in order to maintain your own life, or
3. These situations can be explained by NAP but not with the standard definition of aggression.

"Their surviving family members have property rights over the body, but are their property rights going to stop you from doing what you have to for survival?"

I contend that in this situation we can apply NAP and come to a the same conclusion you have here and at the same time not sink to logical depths that render NAP faulty and therefore the entire foundation of property/liberty driven Libertarian doctrine:

The answer to this dilemma must be then that it is an act of aggression not allow someone to do the only thing they can do to maintain their life; life is property. Doing so is the initiation of aggression that justifies retaliatory aggression. In this case taking the body by force so that you can feed yourself - and live another day.

What is the primary purpose of life? I believe it to live - maintain life of the body. All action that violates one's ability to fulfill that purpose is aggression. This definition of aggression when plugged into NAP simply states that no action is just which hampers or infringes on another's right to fulfill the purpose of life.

It's either this or NAP doesn't work in life and death situations and it is not a universal code of ethics, as it does not render proper, or acceptable judgment on matters for which a moral code is most needed - acts which require violence to live.

The error is now clear

You are basing your position on your personal (and utterly unjustified) opinion that the primary (i.e., ultimate) purpose of life is to maintain life of the body. You have no right to impose that personal opinion on anyone, and not everybody agrees with that. Ever heard of "Give me liberty or give me death?" If the primary purpose of life is to maintain life, then you are quickly lead to all manner of contradictions. It's fine for you to think that, but at least you know where to look for the problem.

It's something along these lines that has lead the Ayn Rand crowd into the ditch. They think that their notion of "ultimate purpose" can be imposed on others who have chosen other ultimate purposes.

Farmer, Do you consider

Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Just curious. Do you subscribe the Non Aggression Principle as the basis for moral action in a free society?

A rose by any other name...

I suppose I would consider myslelf something of a classical liberal (libertarian), but I am not considered a libertarian by many here because I reject the monopoly on violence inherent in the state. I think most of what I'm saying (and what I think) is in harmony with the non aggression principle. Probably most of what I think can be derived from it. I think it's among the best ideas we have. As we've been discussing, however, it comes down to definitions at some point. What exactly is meant by aggression?

I think I have, and am open to, a rather broad notion of aggression. But I think there are natural guides for that related to connection to place---or for lack of a better word, the environment.

It also seems to me that the broadening of the category of actions that constitute aggression you are suggesting is a bit too much. And I don't see in your line of reasoning and examples a justification for it.

Along this line, let me ask you a question: If you see a dictator like Hitler arise, and you have the means to train yourself as an assassin and kill him, do you have a moral obligation to do so? You have your time to spend---that is your possession, and if you just sit in your chair it will result in the deaths of others. This is something like the reasoning applied to elicit nationalist support in the United States for involvement in everything from WWII to current conflicts in Egypt. It seems that the people in these other places bear no responsibility for the psychopaths who rise up in their societies, just like the lady outside my house bears no responsibility for the guy beating her up.

If you didn't do this in your own country, and others in the Middle East in desparation trying to get the psychopaths from the United States (and their bombs) out of their backyard, detonated a bomb in New York, would you consider that justified aggression? Would it be your fault for sitting in your chair and not using your resources to help the people in the Middle East. In fact, you're probably contributing your own resources and labor to fund these actions of the ruling class in the United States.

As an aside, I'll tell you a sort of funny story. I guy came through my woods a couple months ago (all wet because he had run through the creek, very tense, and a bit cut up and bruised) and came knocking on my door. He was looking over his shoulder and said there was a group of guys who were chasing him to beat him up because he was fooling around with his girlfriend and she was also the girlfriend of one of the other guys chasing him. I told him I would make sure he got safely off my property. I called his mother's boyfriend (!) for him to come pick him up and escorted him (with a shotgun and pistol) to the road near my property where I waited with him for his ride. I figured I was adequately armed and trained to deter the group chasing him. That was my resource, and that is the way I decided to use it. It might have been best for him to face his "friends" in this case, but I didn't want it happening on my property. I didn't want them there, and I didn't want him there. And incidentally, I know the guy from the community. He's just gotten out of jail for meth and is about 40 years old. So that's the way I have experienced these things working out in the real world. And yes, if he had tried to break into my house, there is a decent likelihood he would have been shot, and he knows that now.

"let me ask you a question:

"let me ask you a question: If you see a dictator like Hitler arise, and you have the means to train yourself as an assassin and kill him, do you have a moral obligation to do so?

You have your time to spend---that is your possession, and if you just sit in your chair it will result in the deaths of others."

What I said on this matter was: "That there are shades of obligation in the scenarios mentioned above does not escape me. I am well aware that for liberty to prevail, the individual must be free to consider his own well being; to weigh the risk involved when rendering aid to another. There is no justice in coercing by force one to act to his own detriment. No one is morally obligated to risk his life to save another though such an act is most noble and stems from no other place but love of others."

"This is something like the reasoning applied to elicit nationalist support in the United States for involvement in everything from WWII to current conflicts in Egypt."

This doesn't escape me. People will risk their lives to help others. I think government takes advantage of that.

It's a serach for a

It's a search for a moral/ethical universal standard that is based on logic. I would not dare force my ideals on anyone in real life. This dialog does not constitute force in any way shape or form. I am simply applying a principle to life situations and talking them through to their logical conclusions. The ultimate goal is to see whether others can follow along and come to see things the same way I have. It's an attempt to be persuasive, yes. But a conversation is in no way coercive. These are just thing to consider in our own person journey, and an attempt to make the world better ie more liberty, freedom, and justice for every sovereign man.


I had no intention of suggesting our dialog constitutes force or coercion. Lighten up. Nevertheless, I think there are (more or less) universal principles of morality and/or ethics. I don't know if I'd say they are "based on logic." They are partly based on logic and partly based on experience. I don't know if we (as humans) understand them all yet, but I think we're making progress. I assume we're, more or less, on the same page. Yours is a good question. I guess you understand my position on it. I clearly don't understand yours, but it's still interesting.

I'd like to point out that

I'd like to point out that you are correct in stating that an action being justified by NAP does not mean that it is necessarily required action. If I am punched NAP says I can defend myself, but it also does not deny me the opportunity to turn the other cheek. If am forced carry a load I can resist but I may also offer to carry it twice as far. If I am enslaved I might struggle to escape but I may also opt to be the best slave I can be. These are all options that do not violate NAP.

The last an most severe situation to consider is one which two or more people require the same scarce resource to maintain life. What then is moral? Should each determine that it would be immoral to deny the other the opportunity to continue living in which case they both die? Or does the "one who can swing a club the best" justly win whatever it is that is required to continue living?

These types of scenarios are beyond my comprehension at the moment. Is it survival of the fittest that dictates moral action here? IDK.

IDK either if survival of the

IDK either if survival of the fittest dictates the moral action, but it will dictate the outcome in the real world.

I'm sure such a scenario will

I'm sure such a scenario will rattle around inside my head for the next few months. Maybe I'll come to some conclusion I can live with. Maybe not. I know I wrestled with the scenarios I've presented here for quite a while. I'm here testing out my theory. It's been helpful to get it out of my head and onto the screen. Although any time I put myself out there it's a bit of a nerve wracking experience. I'm not good with criticism. There I said it.

When it comes down to it...

"When it comes down to it, everyone is doing what they "perceive" to be in the best interests of their own survival."

This is clearly not the case. Just think about it. There is significant precedent for people doing things they perceive will lead directly to their deaths (the opposite of their survival). I'm not saying it's a majority or even large precedent, but it is significant. And these (perhaps virtuous) people provide a counterexample to essentially all the ideas you've expressed in this post.

It is quite conceivable, that someone could choose to die rather than eat human flesh in a plane crash. The property rights of surviving family members in such a situation are not entirely clear (probably). If that was the choice, however, I would probably have no problem eating their (pork-like?) carcases, but if the family objected, I would definitely take that into consideration.

You are correct that a

You are correct that a minority are seeking to die, the opposite of survival. There is a difference between the suicidal and those that engage in short term pleasures with cognitive dissonance kicking in to excuse away the long term effects.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that if you are considering eating human flesh to survive, the virtues of property rights are not the primary concern on your mind.

Yes, "pork like", at least according to the majority of cannibal testimony. The is no complete consensus on the issue.

And of what use is any of

And of what use is any of this philosophy if one does notknow the law. We are citizens of The United States and therefore the direct subjects of Congress. Morality or philosophy has nothing to do with it. Even the Constitution has very little, if any, relevance to our situation. The first and most important question we should be asking ourselves is: why do we continue to cling to our Federal citizenship dispite all the evidence that such a status only makes slaves of us all. We live, work, prosper and have the use of property at the benevolent whim of Congress.

Until we comprehend the law that places us in this subservient position and come to terms with it, the governments we now support with our fielty and our vote will never change. We will never achieve the republican freedom we were taught we had or were promised, but which Congress has lied about in their taking it from us.

Federal citizens are subjects of Congress and the President and live under Civil Law. The peoples of the States, for whome the Federal Government is a foreign government, live in republican freedom under The Common Law.

Only when we claim our rightful status as States with nationality and sovereignty once more, throwing off the communist yoke of Federal citizenship will the discussion of such philosophy be remotely useful.

God save us all.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Please Please Please

STOP pushing your belief system down my throat ...
I am a free spirit, an Anarchist, owing no allegiance to rulers, heavenly or earthly.

You want to belong to a God fine you are property a slave you get what your master chooses to give ~ good or bad.

I am not Property

Do not speak to me as if I am a runaway slave from Gods great plantation in the sky

I belong to myself
I think therefor I AM !!!!!

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

It is not my intension to

It is not my intension to offend. Nothing I have said is a belief system. You may want to reexamine the definitions of "belief system," "sovereignty," "United States," "citizen," "union," "federation," "Congress," "state," "country," "nation and nationality," and "force."

1. I have not forced anything upon you, cry as you may that I have.

2. Facts do not relate to a "belief system." You are a US citizen are you not? I did not force that upon you did I?

3. If you are indeed sovereign, over what are you sovereign? Why do you have a driver's licence, pay real estate and income taxes, and are forced to buy health insurance? If you do not obey, they take you to jail... or worse. This doesn't sound like sovereinty to me.

4. The word congress means an international organization of representatives from sovereign countries. In our case the States.

5. As to my relationship to God or the Creator, that's my business, but without "Him" you have no rights that supersede the laws of Man.

If you wish to be willfully ignorant of the law that's your business. I'm just here to help those who wish to help themselves.

I hope you can find peace without republican freedom.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

How free & Sovereign are we?

I feel the same way you do but something came up in another article so this AM I was researching EO 11490. Many of you already know all this but perhaps time for a refresher.

History of EO 11490 last changed in 2012

Context of 'October 28, 1969: President Nixon Signs Executive Order 11490'

Executive Order 11490 to 13603

The Executive Order


I do believe in God

It's called seeking the

It's called seeking the truth. That's what we do.

pardon me, but what exactly

pardon me, but what exactly are you calling "seeking the truth?"

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Coming to the DP to discuss

Coming to the DP to discuss the philosophy of liberty with others who have spent time themselves considering praxiology, morality, economics, justice and the like. You know, the kind of stuff Ron Paul talks about.

How about this?

No. Simply no. All of these examples seem to be based on the idea that death or suffering is always undesirable.

The starving man may be best served by realizing that he should have thought things out better and provided for himself.

The assaulted woman may be best served by realizing that she should have kept herself in a safer environment.

I think this objection applies to your entire line of thought. It's not necessarly moral relativism per se, but obviously (your evaluation of) death and suffering are not always the ultimate determiner of morality.

In no case is idleness aggression. The one with resources to help is the one who finds himself in the position to decide, and presumably decide he will, but none of the decisions you suggest constitute aggression.

On the other hand, filling your fuel tank with gasoline and driving around constitutes aggression (to a much greater extent). You are destroying resources which future generations will never be able to use. You are aggressing against them. And other individuals would be justified in defending future generations against your aggression.

Also, I don't think your idea of punishments fitting crimes is correct. If someone violates my space in an act of aggression (stealing for example), he has forfeited his expectation to avoid my defense against his aggression, and I am justified in stopping his aggression by any means.

I have to go now, but perhaps what we should discuss is what actually constitutes morality.

I'm buying you argument here

I'm buying you argument here to a certain point. It's the typical argument, the one I bought for years. It's familiar and safe. But it leads me to conclusions that violates my conscious.

"In no case is idleness aggression. The one with resources to help is the one who finds himself in the position to decide, and presumably decide he will, but none of the decisions you suggest constitute aggression."

OK, but you still have no answer which explains the justification for the girl entering my home through the window - using my property to seek safety without my permission.

Most people feel that a poor man stealing is justified, a woman in danger breaking an entering is justified, a drowning man grabbing the side of a nearby boat is justified - despite the owners wishes. All these are obviously a violation of property rights strictly speaking.

If these actions are justified and are not unethical, then either NAP is wrong (not all aggression is illegitimate) or, the definition of aggression needs beefed up to cover a wider range of unethical behaviors to identify the source of aggression which justifies such behavior.

Following your theory of aggression to it's end one finds that any force to keep this girl out of your house is justified. She sticks her head in your window and you shoot her. Justified. My property. Done.

I don't think so.

What can be the justification of violating another person's property rights other than them having first violated yours? I don't think there is anything which justifies aggression other than the initiation of aggression. This is the heart of NAP. All aggression is illegitimate.

If these people are initiating aggression, the proper NAP adherent has to say, it's never unethical to deny the starving man food, it's never unethical to deny the woman in danger shelter, and it's never unethical to deny the drowning man a means of preserving is life. I don't think that jives with my idea of ethical behavior.

People are not free to use their property in a manor expected and intended to do other people harm. That's not what property rights supply. If you use your property in a manor which you predict will result in harm befalling another, you have aggressed. Even if you have not moved from your chair.

"Also, I don't think your idea of punishments fitting crimes is correct. If someone violates my space in an act of aggression (stealing for example), he has forfeited his expectation to avoid my defense against his aggression, and I am justified in stopping his aggression by any means."

This is the old argument that you're justified to shoot an kill a person for walking on your yard because you have no trespassing signs up. Again this is the kind of corner NAP puts one in if idleness is not aggression. Obviously it's not ethical to shoot someone for walking across your yard. This is a whole other topic really.


Yes, I have no answer which justifies the girl entering my home. I don't think there is one. Not all actions are justified. This does not mean that people do not execute those actions.

Since there is no justification for such actions, why must I provide one? I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.

Just because most people feel that a poor man stealing is justified does not make that the case. Philosophy is about understanding the true nature of things, not taking a poll of popular opinion.

If you don't think I'm justified in shooting an intruder, then as far as I'm concerned I would think you would need to come up with an explanation for that. And it should be something better than "That is what most people think."

This does not mean, of course, that I am required to shoot an intruder, which seems to be another difficulty you're having in understanding the topic of your inquiry. Just because I'm justified in shooting someone who walks across my yard, does not mean I will, i.e., want to, do that. Just because I'm justified in shooting someone who forces me off the road to rob me (even if he has flashing red lights on his car) does not mean I'm going to do that.

Not providing food, or aid, or anything else, is not denying those things to those people. At worst it is denying those people access to specific sources of those things. It may be commendable to grant them access, but I see absolutely no reason it is unethical to do otherwise. Again, is it just because most people think that? I really hate that reason, which is quite common in introductory philosophy texts. Even Socrates had it figured out that the majority opinion is of little worth.

Now, using my property in a manner that results in harm to another is certainly aggression. Sitting in my chair, however, is not enough. Take the woman running from the assailant. Did I do something to put her in the position of being assaulted? If so, then I am responsible. If not, then the responsibility lies with whoever did---maybe even her.

"Obviously it's not ethical to shoot someone for walking across your yard."

I see that you've provided here another impressive reason for your position. It's obvious. Nothing to argue with there...literally.

Incidentally, I think you mean to say that some things violate your "conscience." If they violate your "conscious," I think that means they are putting you to sleep. That's also possible I guess.

"Yes, I have no answer which

"Yes, I have no answer which justifies the girl entering my home."

You have three choices;
1. NAP is wrong (this is the foundation of Libertarianism fyi) because sometimes the initiation of aggression is justified.
2. Idleness is not aggression in this scenario and the girl is not justified in entering your home to protect her life and you are just in executing her for attempting to utilize your property without your consent. Clearly this violates the conscience of most people and on that grounds it's a nonstarter for those looking into Libertarianism.
3. Idleness is action and in this scenario is constitutes the initiation of aggression against the girl to deny her the most direct means to prolonging her life (remember the caveat here that you believe the threat to the girl to be real and see no potential for harm to come to your person by allowing her refuge in your home but you decide to force her to stay outside in harms way by not letting her in), which justifies her breaking in, does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle and saves the Libertarian philosophy from all those folks out there to think the whole theory is based on survival of the fittest and those who adhere to it have no heart.

Simple: Mises was wrong and Rothbard was right

And Mises came to understand later on and became largely Rothbardian. This is what intelligent people do, they admit when they are wrong. Mises did enough and made Rothbard' work possible. It's no sin that he didn't get everything right the first go. If he did, we may never have heard of Rothbard.

Idleness may be undesired but the only solution to it is violence, and specifically the systematic dehumanizing violence of the state.

Put more elementally, sloth and greed may be evil, but violence is always more evil. If you can only solve the former by use of the latter, you added to evil.

And I don't mean that just in some moralistic way. If you use violence against someone who is not engaged in a violent sin, he will learn that he may as well use violence to begin with.

Let me be even more specific. If you tax the rich at gunpoint, whence now is your moral authority to rail against the police state they are now creating? To them it's you who started the fight, and they do not intend to lose it any more.

So this is not a mere speculative. When you use violence to do good in the short term you aid evil in the long term and MUCH more.

This is a problem (the 'sin' of idleness understood to really be your way of saying the haves not helping the poor) by the way, which the market has solved fine. Churches and friendly societies did the job much better before the state turned charity into a monopolistic industry.

As a point of fact poverty was in steady decline until the war on poverty. This is as natural as sunrise.

The legions of government parasites would have to find productive employment if poverty went away.

So what's more important to 5 million bureaucrats and social workers, ending poverty or keeping their cushy government job with cushy government pay and cushy government pensions?

That question is rhetorical by the way.

Maybe not all, but most.

And as for the question of one person owning half the country, like the government does now, it won't happen in a free society.

How do I know? Because in a free society no one can socialize the cost of protecting their property on others via taxes or conscription.

Someone may claim ownership of Ohio, but unless they can actually protect their claim, and they certainly cannot without a government to do it for them, there won't be 'land monopolies'.

Hell I will give you a deed to Ohio tomorrow, in case freedom breaks out anytime soon. Feel free to try to enforce your ownership claim:)

Rothbard agreed with Mises on

Rothbard agreed with Mises on this point. Action is not only doing what can be done but forgoing to do what is possible. Since that's the only reference I made to mises I assume that is what you're referring to. See page 6 of Man Economy and State. Rothbard makes the same exact point regarding action and what he calls passiveness.

Is there any other

Is there any other justification for violating another persons property rights other than them having first violated yours?