7 votes

What makes the non-aggression principle "Right"?

If I see someone coming toward me with an intention to do me harm, a criminal, a sociopath, an enemy, someone operating outside the human social norms or moral law, a predator, I know with no uncertainty this person is bad news. There's a feeling of danger, fear, like with a wild animal. More than that, a feeling of sickness, anger, betrayal, injustice. This person is a deviant, someone with no right, no quarter, no protections. A traitor to human society.

But why?

Because I have some presumption or expectation that this enemy and predator should not be an enemy, that I am owed a certain respect by this human, and see them as a common member of some kind of social agreement, or moral law, or community where everyone refrains from breaking these common rules. I feel this person is under an obligation which they're breaking.

But if I did not have this expectation, if I was in a hostile territory and expected no such common treatment, I might regard such a human being just as a predator no different than a wild animal.

I have to imagine that at points in history, this is much how people regarded dangerous humans from other tribes, not with any moral outrage, just with a sense of danger from a predator. In the absence of any expectation of a common law or moral code, in the absence of any mutual obligation or shared interests, there would be no moral outrage.

Perhaps this is wrong. Perhaps people always did or at least should have felt moral outrage at predatory behavior from other humans. Maybe all such behavior is inherently, objectively wrong, regardless of whether people knew or apprehended it. This would presuppose the existence of objective moral obligations on all men toward all other men, and could only be grounded in some higher law giver.

If men are just animals following their natural instincts and dispositions, then there is neither ground for objectivity in right and wrong, nor should there be a sense of injustice or instinctive moral knowledge that all humans ought do such and such.

Historically, such a sense of moral outrage did not always attach to predatory humans, unless they were already within the tribe, bound to some kind of mutually understood code of behavior to which all adhered. It is the shattering of this expectation of common conduct that I think produces the feeling of injustice, moral outrage, and shock.

But such a blow to one's cognitive peace does not in fact provide any objective grounding for the real moral nature of an act. It explains the feeling, or describes it, rather, but it doesn't tell us that the act itself is unjust.

Just because we don't like to feel betrayed, tricked, caught off guard, or in the cross hairs of a self serving human predator, out for himself and running his own game, taking advantage of social arrangements only to abuse and flout them for his advantage... doesn't mean that that person is doing anything morally wrong.

This person is not responsible for our assumption of a common moral law, or some agreement. If he's running his own game, and has his own goals, we can hate him, we can be angry, but he doesn't owe us anything in a world of free, equal individuals with no higher law giver.

Men are their own masters and bosses, define their own moral oughts, personal goals, define what is right and what is wrong, and assuming they have moral obligations to you is just your false assumption.

You may be right in locking them up, destroying them, hunting them down, just like wild animals. But if they are just animals, as on naturalism, and there is no higher moral law, no law giver, and no objective, binding morality, then they are just free agents pursuing their chosen goals.

Even a person who has explicitly made promises, if he then breaks them, is that a standard of immorality? But who says he is obliged to keep promises? Who gives this law?

Is it just because it harms the interests of society? Are we just an injured party, angry and taking revenge? If society is the source of right and wrong, where does that road end? If so, then society also defined and delimits rights.

So what is even meant by right and wrong in terms of the non aggression principle?

Here, we are dealing not just with a code applied to an ingroup where a common moral law is rightly assumed as applying, where a social contract of mutual obligations exists. No, the NAP seeks to extend its domain to all human relations, so that no human ever physically interferes with another without invitation. And if anyone does, it is deemed morally wrong.

What is the argument for this moral system, if it is not given from above, or written in the human heart?

I still have yet to see the argument.

And let's be clear. On atheism and naturalism, which is the predominant view in the higher educated libertarian movement (Mises, Rothbard, Rand, Larken Rose, Adam Kokesh, Molyneaux) as well as the greater western intellectual culture - THERE IS NO HIGHER LAW GIVER. Let's get that clear and not debate it.

More pertinent to the discussion, as perhaps more controversial, is the second point. Let's be truthful and face the facts. There is no such moral system written in the human heart. Not of everyone, not of most, not of a majority. There is no imperative in the human heart, historically or presently, in instinct or logic, that tells a person never to use force to advance one's own interests, one's family, etc.

A hungry man with a hungry child has no moral statement written on his heart to refrain from stealing an apple from a rich man's apple cart, or killing said man, for a meal. And you can take it as far down the road from there as you want. Nothing was written on the hearts of socialist revolutionaries and gulag operators, or German nationalists and camp guards.

Sure, some probably had grave moral misgivings about their actions, deep moral pain and guilt. But by and large, every state and every nation has a large share of people with no moral misgivings about harming others and plenty more who will justify intellectually such actions even if they product bad, vestigial feelings of remorse.

If there is no higher law giver, and there is nothing written universally on the human heart, then how do you persuade people to adopt the radical NAP?

Do you say it's not radical? Don't be obtuse. It would dismantle every existing social arrangement and order, every state, every legal system, democratic or otherwise. It is extremely radical and a departure from all present legal order and international relationships.

So then, how persuade people to adopt a radical departure from the order they know, in service of a moral claim or ethical demand that no person ever physically interfere with another person uninivted? How do you justify the rightness of this claim?

Just say it's right? People are free to disagree, and do.

Appeal to their self interests? That's an appeal to self interest, class interest, or what have you, and is not a justification of ethics.

Appeal to the good of everyone? That is utilitarian approach, and is one step removed in to abstraction than the direct appeal to interests.

I am at a loss to understand or grasp how modern intellectuals, fully enwrapped in atheism and nothing doubting, and fully aware (or should be, anyway) of the psychological and biological nature of human beings, their violence, particularism, irrationality, selfishness, and shortsightedness - how do they come up with morally binding ethical claims and demands, and justify them?

How do they believe them, themselves, or hope to persuade others less blind to the implications that follow obviously from the absence of any law giver and the absence of any internal emotive or logical demands in humans for such ethical imperatives?

Do they even care to be taken seriously? Do they even wish to have an intellectually sound, consistent and defensible position?

Are they just gurus, cult leaders, powerful personalities and witch doctors on the modern stage of the podcast and blog?

Give us something. Give us an argument, at least try.

Comment viewing options

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

Times like these

You have to just tell people that if they think violence will solve problems than by all means. Take it all. The government is perfect for those people, because he'll you're above any law, even "gods" law.

The NAP is only a self-referential law, if someone doesn't understand peaceful cooperation it's kind of meaningless. It's like the robber scenario.

"What if you have to use violence to protect yourself" -- har har -- except violence in the form of defense isn't even really violence so far as you're only returning what has been given to you. No one following nap can walk around just hitting people for no reason, and that is the biggest reason for it's wanted political adoption. If they did they wouldn't be following NAP. It's like the suicidal "muslims" that are not "Muslims" at all but just suicidal morons.

The whole government mantra of kill/rape first ask questions later has brought us into endless wars and savagery that could be sidelined all on the part of a philosophical understanding that is so easy we teach it to 2 year olds and even they understand it without question.

Blind Faith

It's the only way to get the ball rolling, so many libertarians believe it to be true.


Someone sat down and said let us call our god ... the bundle of rights god. We shall worship the bundle of rights god. Pay tribute to the bundle of rights god. Offer sacrifices to the bundle of rights god. Create institutions to proselytize the bundle of rights god. We also received from on high, a few commandments from the bundle of rights god:

1. Place the bundle of rights god before all other gods.
2. Though shall not aggress against any bundle of rights.
3. One's rights end where another's begin.

What makes it right? Well, it is a miracle ... praise be to the bundle of rights god ... for some reason, people who have never heard of the bundle of rights god believe he does in fact exist. The reason it is a miracle is that no one has any empirical reason to believe they have any rights, yet billions of people agree ... they have rights. Is that a statistical anomaly or what? What are the odds of almost everyone, possibly everyone, being in agreement they have rights? I wonder if they are called rights because everyone in agreement is right? If the odds of everyone agreeing on any one thing is nearly statistically impossible, it must be a miracle.

The NAP and the AP - the Aggression Principle - are both tools

for creating a society.

One is a peaceful tool, the other is an iron fist, sometimes hidden under a velvet glove. Either tool can be employed to keep the human herds in line. Which is better? Depends on who you are and what you like. I happen to like the NAP but there are plenty of ass-kickin' types who would love to work for an AP-based control grid lockdown North Korea-type jackboot tyranny.

I choose to kill them with kindness. I choose the NAP.

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

While I appreciate the sentiment

You're not dealing with the real issue, which is the underlying theory of property to which any 'NAP' applies. Simply not being aggressive doesn't commit oneself to a specific theory of property. My absurdist examples refer to a truly absolute definition of property. Rothbard's NAP is a few degrees less absolute, and the property system we currently labor under is a number of degrees less absolute still. It seems to me just a cheap trick and argumentative ploy to claim one's own arbitrary property definition is truly "ethical" as if to tar your opponent as a miscreant. Bad form, bad theory.

Cyril's picture

Sorry, but I still fail to see... As a principle,

... what makes it wrong?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Non aggression, per se

means simply that force is only used defensively, in defense of one's physical person and one's property.

What degree of force is permitted is of course arbitrary and has to be argued for independently.

The key problem is that the definition does not demand any specific definition of property, so that the definition of property also must be argued for independently.

I think the definition of property implied in standard NAP is poorly thought out and poorly argued for. The pretense of a naturally-derived ethic from nature is false, and so the overall argument fails. Moreover, if you look at the probably outcome of actually applying the principle, it seems reasonable that it will produce less actual human liberty than some other arrangement.

Cyril's picture

Doesn't make any sense to me.

"It seems reasonable that it will produce less actual human liberty than some other arrangement."

Well, it doesn't seem so to me.

At all. This rather seems not only pure speculation (where/when has the NAP ever been fully applied to observe such clues, to begin with? Never I'm afraid...) and counter-intuitive, but also, more problematic : completely self-contradictory.

If I understood well, then because I'd choose not to aggress others out of the blue for whatever "reasons" I could devise, that would make them (and/or myself) "less free" in the long run? Really?

Or, more crudely : going to war is good for freedom? While trying to stay at peace with others is bad for freedom?

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me.

But I'm somehow biased, granted. Because I don't believe in the existence of any "reasonable" answer to this other challenging question, precisely :


Maybe you do believe in Supermen who know "what's best" for everybody, provided they can go coerce others at will, following their whims of the time - but, here, I don't.

And I have some recent (even, ongoing) factual data points for choosing that side of the fence, e.g.:

As early as 1793, 1794 :


All throughout the 20th century :


So, we have a strongly divergent, irreconcilable difference between our respective basic belief systems, I'm afraid.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Well look, I'll draw you a

Well look, I'll draw you a parallel.

Here's the "socialist" version of NAP.

You should never commit aggression against anyone's property. Just property consists in common ownership of all land, natural resources and capital goods.

That is logically structured just like the anarchist NAP, only with a different theory of what constitutes just property ownership.

The point isn't whether one is right, only that the property theory + non aggression does not guarantee the desired outcome.

On the socialist NAP, what happens is people use alternate means to produce inequality since the free market is closed off. They use political violence or social networks or black markets to produce inequality, which is prevented formally by law. Human nature just finds other outlets to override the demands of the ethic.

In just the same way, anarchist NAP can create actual conditions that don't achieve the goals of anarchist, which presumably would be maximum individual freedom. Instead, the NAP in practice could produce concentrations of private power that enable violence and create injustice, and just lead to government.

I am not attempting to prove this will happen, just that it's not in any way contradictory to the premises.

Cyril's picture

To put it otherwise :

To put it otherwise :

any system that will seek to attain whatever desired social outcome by the application of spontaneous and arbitrary force for its goal(s), is - or will be, by very construction, antagonistic to the NAP.

The NAP doesn't imply the absence of force - we can use force when defending ourselves against a coming aggression.

What it does imply is we don't use force - as an attacker - first.

That is all it says. No more, no less.

Systems like "socialism" (which is by no means the only one, btw; an absolute monarchy is another obvious example) attempt to do a lot more. IMO, way too much.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You are mistaken

NAP doesn't merely tell you to refrain from non-defensive violence.

It also defined for you in advance what property is, without you having given it any thought.

It is not at all obvious what property really is. It is a legal construct, and in the real world does not imply 100% absolute ownership.

Since it is the group of other people who enforce your property rights, and not you, they decide whether your property rights are absolute or whether you owe a tithe.

Since NAP doesn't actually define property rights, and can apply to any system of property rights, it is an entirely vacuous concept.

If you want to defend your preferred libertarian or anarchist system, you have to defend a theory of just property rights, not just invoke the mantra of non aggression.

Cyril's picture

Again, I disagree, sorry!

Again, I disagree, sorry!

The NAP is only what it is : a very general, terse, principle.

AFAICS, it makes no other assumptions than those that its natural language formulation suggests : Do Not Aggress - i.e., Do Not Attack First - or, Do Not Infringe, as you could be taken accountable for it.

What you are alluding to, is defined elsewhere - besides the NAP.

Some call them "natural rights" or "God given rights" or "commonly agreed upon rights" if you wish, even.

And the latter are to be chosen by the people, prior to anything else - independently from their individual, personal acceptance vs. rejection of the NAP, e.g., relevant to this country, by constraining the power of the state over them :


I wrote independently on purpose, precisely because we have evidences that some people do make some sense out of it :


and we have also counter-examples that others don't care much about it, at the highest level of the state :


We will always have opportunistic criminals in the society. Individual rights and a functioning Justice system are there to help their activities to not spread too much over time and/or space. Those, until caught in or after a crime, will not care much about the NAP, granted.

But one of TODAY's societal issues is :

The NAP is precisely, and BY LARGE not followed, these days - either by the state or by the people (who, both, often are hungry for ongoing legal plunder).

It's a vicious circle, because the most common reflex of the plundered masses, instead of striking at the root of evil - legal plunder (the exact opposite of the NAP) - is their want to acquire, their turn, the means of inflicting plunder legally on whomever they can take from, to counter-balance the plunder they themselves suffer.

Maybe you missed this post I shared for educative purpose, in simple words :



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


If you define "aggress" to include aggression against property, you need a definition of property included in the principle. The definition of property is not at all obvious.

If NAP did not apply to property, but only to human bodies, then it would be what has been described as a "grab what you can" world. Grab whatever you want as long as you don't touch anyone's body. An absurd system.

NAP requires a definition of property, justly owned things, and what they consist of.

Cyril's picture

I don't think you need a legislator

I don't think you need a legislator to figure things out by yourself, if I come to that location with a mailbox with your name on it, that I prior watched for days as you leave/come back to - say, on your way off to/from work - and then I break through its entrance door to empty it in your absence, leaving you only the walls and the roof.

Also, I don't think you'd ask yourself - or to a legislator - if I looked whether you had the receipts, or not, of all the stuff I happened to grab during my expedition.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture



Here, in bold :

[...] Just property consists in common ownership of all land, natural resources and capital goods.

Because that's not even remotely close to any flavor of the NAP, certainly not from a "socialist" flavor, intrinsically based on a system that entails arbitrary usage of force.

It's a bit like talking of drying water or freezing fire.

"Just property consists in common ownership"

How/why so? This is an instance of the usage of arbitrary force, through prior arbitrary redefinition of literal language : who are they to decide and use force on everybody, so that "property" has to be redefined as "common ownership" - exclusively?

Is my body also supposed to be "commonly owned"?

Is my food intake, likewise - do I have to be able to regurgitate anything or everything I absorbed after a decree is released?

Do I have to share every single of my thoughts at once, because my thinking is now expected to pour only in the common pool of ideas?

This does seem silly for these last three, no?

Then why, that which cannot be applied to my body, or food intake, or reflections, could be applied to tangible goods that I am capable to produce by myself thanks to prior investment (say, "tools") and my labor, or to exchange thanks to prior capital (say, "savings") - physical or otherwise?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


So you've moved on to defending a normative theory of property rather than invoking the NAP mantra. That is progress. NAP is a vacuous concept, relying wholly on the theory of property which underlies it. If that theory fails, then it fails. NAP never enters the equation except as a fig leaf for the proffered theory of property.

Cyril's picture

Too abstract for me. Sterile path for a discussion. Sorry.

If you're having trouble with mere common sense intuition of what is private property - say, the last gallon of milk you bought and put in your fridge, or your checking account balance - sorry, but... I have to leave you here!

Are you going to challenge what is "noun" vs. "adjective" vs. "verb", next?

This is a sterile path for a discussion, IMO. Sorry if I disappoint, but I prefer to be frank. No offense, I hope.

Let me put it this way: my 4 year old already knows to recognize, in context, which toys are his... as his "private property" at home, and which ones aren't (yet, or ever) in a store - and hell, I'd be the last one to try to confuse him on making that difference.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


that no country in the entire world subscribes to the normative theory of property smuggled in with standard NAP formulations, despite hundreds of years of free speech and democratic institutions, I will have to assume that your heterodox (fringe) theory is not obvious to anyone, nor is there a consensus, in the same way as there are clear definitions of nouns. If you want to appeal to obviousness and consensus, you are then stuck with the predominant definition of property, which permits taxation as a cost of the community actually enforcing property rights.

As for your four year old, see if you put him in a room with another kid and his toys, and if he grabs one of the toys. Is that a sound basis for property rights, what a four year old does? Think!

Good talk!

Cyril's picture

"As for your four year old, see if you put him in a room"

As for your four year old, see if you put him in a room with another kid and his toys, and if he grabs one of the toys.

There's a law and he knows that law, too. Yet, he can't even read or write, still. So, the law isn't even written anywhere for him.

He also knows his mom and I are the law enforcement.

(The only thing his intellect as a 4 year old doesn't know yet is if we will be that one - law enforcement - forever, of course, etc)

But that hardly matters : I observed that 99% of the time he doesn't have any issue abiding to the law he knows, even more so, when the law enforcement isn't far (that is, always).

Does this answer your question?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


Kids fight all the time over stuff.

Cyril's picture

Well, I guess we're lucky here

Well, I guess we're lucky here : when they fight, it's much more often between siblings, than with strangers.

But maybe you'll see the interesting property of the NAP vs. the Superman Idea :

with the NAP, and just, simple laws, around simple notions like property, it isn't difficult to have kids - even the ones tempted to be belligerent with strangers - to see their own-self interest of abiding to those laws without aggression.

When you reject the NAP - as we do in our adult society, don't we? - it is equivalent to empowering some kids only with the exclusive privilege of using force (and violence) for their laws (or, "plans") that their imagination come up with, instead of having one, impersonal Justice above all - defined around preserving the rights of every individuals.

That then makes for ever more imaginative bullies. The "bosses".

Rejecting the NAP as an unsound or undesirable principle (for what good reason exactly? I still fail to see) is exactly defending today's status quo, with a mascarade of Justice, with a Law Perverted.

Power to the few - Greater Organizers of Society! - and subjection for the many - so, yes : EXIT the NAP - as a PREREQUISITE for that.


Maybe we should learn from our raising balanced kids, and stop thinking in an abstract backed by whatever sophisticated spreadsheets of inputs/outcomes allegedly made up "for the greater good of society".

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Your progress

away from the buzzword NAP as been reversed! You were on track to begin defending or arguing for a particular theory of property, but you backslid into the vacuous mantra NAP.

Cyril's picture

Sorry, but I don't follow you.

Sorry, but I don't follow you. Maybe I wasn't clear:

I'm not even interested in "defending or arguing for a particular theory of property".

I leave it to the dictionaries. Or okay, whatever legalese you'd like and that the people can agree upon WITHOUT being forced to.

(Hence, surprise, surprise! the nice property of the NAP, to enable the latter, again.)

As for my perception : does it matter? Assuming it does :

is the house I live in and pay rent mine? No, it isn't.

is the road in front of it mine? Neither. I would assume the latter isn't my landlord's, either. But I couldn't care less - "they" let me go over it, off to and back from work and the groceries, etc.

Is the food in the fridge mine? I guess so : I paid in full for it.

Is this laptop mine? Yes, same reason.

Is this intellectual work I performed mine :



Nope, not any longer - it's in the public domain, now, because I decided so.

What is so difficult in understanding private property (vs. that which isn't) and our natural right to it, when acquired after free, voluntary exchanges, from both sides?

I don't get it.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I tend to agree with your position.

I have argued elsewhere that there is an inherent, fatal, contradiction between the natural unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence and the proposition that all men are created equal.

They appear to be consistent but one assertion is founded on natural law while the other is a presupposition masquerading as a conclusion. The laws of nature presuppose a hierarchy of predator/prey and in the human realm these have been formulated into natural rights that demand protection from the predators by the prey. In order to justify this demand we must assert that all men are created equal.

In demanding these rights we recognise the need for protection so we must therefore recognise the existence of the predator/prey hierarchy. This then argues against the proposition that all men are created equal which we nevertheless assert without any other ground apart from God. The Non-Aggression Principle is merely an extension of this contradiction.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

The ilk of the men I am

The ilk of the men I am around seem to live by the code if you don't smoke, drink, and work yourself to death you aren't a man. I respect their position, but they are of the world and are engaged in the never ending pursuit of money and things that they don't need.

The commandment is "Thou shall not Murder". It doesn't say you shouldn't protect your life and property.

As for the German's...Most believed the Government is all seeing and could never steer them wrong. But I am sure many did what they did motivated by the fear and self preservation.

If one believes they don't have a soul and are just a smart animal is that not what they will become?

But about myself I will not boast, except as it concerns my weaknesses (2 Cor 12:5). Let the unbelievers seek praise from each other; I wish that which is from God alone.

No natural laws?

> Submitted by BILL3 on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 19:44. Permalink

> There are no natural laws to human relations. They are man made.

I disagree. There are natural laws to human relations. Look at the soviet union. If a group of thugs tries to take control of all property, then the productive people lose motivation and (eventually) the thugs cannot maintain control becuase there is inadequate wealth for them to use to maintain their control.

That is a natural law in human relations.

When the thugs can convince people that human society must be based on slavery and there is no other alternative, you get cycles of rise and collapse. That's a natural law in human relations.

There are *lots* of natural laws. The problem is understanding what they are and their long term effects. Because people can temporarily decide to violate natural laws, and because human society as we know it was founded on a violation of natural law, does not imply there are no natural laws.

"In the long run we're all dead" is also not correct (though many people think that way). In the long run (so far) some people are still alive. Those people need to eat. Food comes from fertile soil and potable water. These all imply natural laws that a lot of people are breaking.

In fact, the economists mantra that efficiency and production are universal goods violates natural law. Just look around. There is an "economic law" (Smith, Hayek, et al) that an anonymous industrial society based on corporate personhood produces a lot of wealth. However, that view is at odds with natural law because the "wealth" produced by an anonymous industrial society does not lead to health and community. Therefore, you still get cycles of rise and collapse.

It's not all just what people prefer. It may be true that coercion is the only game in town at the moment, but the same will not always prevail.

You might as well say there are no natural laws in physics because some people in some places believed in perpetual motion, and tried to produce it. Or no natural laws in biology becuase most of the people in the world didn't wash their hands to avoid desease.

Do unto others as you would have done to you or

Do unto others Before they do unto you. What kind of world do you want to live in? It's a matter of will, actually.

Incidentally a sense of morality and justice can proceed from the former, while the latter admits only might makes right.

Leges sine moribus vanae


realizes that two individuals have a better ability to survive and live long enough to find mates and pass on knowledge and property than one. Nature also realizes that two uninjured individuals survive better than injured so there is the incentive to peacefully communicate and cooperate. When they are unable to, they can resort to violence rather than peace but I think it's a last resort since nature seeks to conserve energy wherever possible. There are other complicated fundamentals at work as well but I believe that basic natural forces are enough to justify the non aggression principle (property rights) being the foundation of all civilization (ability to grow and create). Peace builds, war destroys. I think when analyzing modern times and more complicated relationships you need to look at it in the same way economics can be viewed through the Crusoe model. Fundamentals. Why do you think that people are naturally destructive? Far more people have interrelated in various peaceful ways than have ever killed each other although when in groups and lacking communication outlets, it does happen. We have over 7 billion people in the world and most of them help/exchange goods with one another. People might say that by my reasoning I think people are animals but I would say that I believe that reason is a gift from god/nature and the highest regulatory mechanism that nature has created in order to distribute resources and spread life far and wide and to new planets.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

A look at the

population clock here https://www.census.gov/popclock/ I believe shows what happens when humans become disconnected from natural law through governments who work to block communication and natural regulation mechanisms (reason). I believe that it shows the deep hatred that they have for humanity in putting up a clock as if we're running out of time....and we just might be with enormous governments deforming everything and causing imbalances everywhere. They are ultimately de-civilizing us all and nature hates it and will correct it (maybe entropy). Also keep in mind that 7 billion people could fit in one continent easily. probably an area much smaller but I never looked into it. In many ways Alex Jones is right when he suggests that these globalists hate people and want to kill them. It's true many times, they do.

Edit: this site says they could fit in Texas with the population density of NY. http://www.omg-facts.com/Interesting/The-entire-world-popula...

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

NAP is the closest emulation of universal love to all humankind

The non-aggression principle is "right" because it is pleasant.

If it engendered endless death and destruction, it would not be considered "right".

The ends validate the means.

NAP is "right" for the same reasons that BBQ is "good". Because people think so.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!