13 votes

Questions for my fellow libertarians who are atheists?

To all libertarian atheists,

Why is aggression wrong? I assume you support the NAP, as do I. But why? What happens to people who violate the NAP? There is no natural "punishment" for rights violations. It's not like physical laws that I can't disregard. If I jump up, gravity pulls me down. If I violate someone's rights, nothing happens to me.

If you say it's just inherently wrong, that's fine. I'm not quibbling with that. But it is a moral statement. But if are just a bag of chemicals and not a creation of a divinity, why does it matter if our supposed "rights" are violated?

Comment viewing options

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


So called "rights" are nothing more than an attempt to create some level of fairness, and individual protection. But they come about only from enough people wanting them to exist (not "divinity"), and they can be taken away and negated very easily as we have all seen over the last 14 years.

As for the religion issue, see this:

Great comment

Although I confess I didn't watch your video link, as it is against my policy of not watching video links.

However, as to theism, it is the only possible objective grounding that I am aware of for right and wrong. We can say something is against our interests and subjectively wrong, but we can't say it is wrong for others in the absence of theism.

The fairness you appeal to is fairness in the sense of "in everyone's interests." But it is not objectively fair or right. If someone is strong enough to disregard appeals to fairness, it is not wrong for them on atheism. Nietzsche figured that that is why it was the weak and botched who invented morality, to try to use it as a weapon against the strong who had no need for it.

The Gospel of George Carlin

The Gospel of George Carlin amen.

As for the religion issue

"Religions exhort man to reach up to God and grasp hold of Him through their own efforts. Christianity is the only religion where God reaches down to man."

Read more here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christianity-unique.html

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

You've exposed yourself

The very fact that you cling to "christianity" as some sort of ticket to superiority over other peoples, or superiority over other religions (or philosophies) -- only exposes yourself as an uneducated, narrow-minded ignoramus.

Christianity has been used to start Wars, foment hatreds, support violence and conquest, support human torture, attack and impede science, jail scientists, and justify widespread social repression, all on a scale as great as any other religion known to mankind.

Want proof? Well, if you believe that "Islamic terrorists" killed 3000 people in 2001.....then Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-GOP-DEM-American Christians killed well over 1,000,000,000 innocent Iraqis from 2002-2014, as well as killed 8,000 Americans by their very own "let God sort them out" pro-christian, Military agenda (and badly injured 100,000 others as well). It is quite clear that self-described "christians" value human life as badly as (or less than) the very worst that human civilization has to offer.

I'll tell you what religions exhort. Religions only exhort man to give up his/her natural critical-thinking facilities, and instead act like a blind herd of sheep.

And there is no "superior" religion folks. The track record of christianity proves that constantly. Perhaps the only peaceful religion is Buddhism, but I doubt if even that qualifies....

I must disagree with this.

A blind herd of sheep would be unlikely to herd successfully.

Jesus Christ is Superior

"Religion is man-made; the Gospel is God-given."

"Religion is what man does for God; the Gospel is what God did for man."

"Religion is man's search for God; the Gospel is Gods search for man."

"Religion is man trying to climb up the ladder of his own self-righteousness, with the hope of meeting God on the topmost rung; the gospel is God coming down the ladder in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and meeting us sinners at the lowest rung."

Read more: http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo9.htm

You calling me an uneducated, narrow-minded ignoramus
is ironic. From reading your post I'm understanding that you do not believe in the God of the Bible. In Psalm 14:1 it says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Isn't religion to blame for most of history's killings?

Also, I do not believe that "Islamic terrorists" killed 3000 people in 2011 and I do not support going to war.

This was posted recently on the DP and I have known this for some time now.
Christians’ Love Of The Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

Jesus H. Christ

All gospels have been written by a bunch of men. In fact, it was The Roman Empire drafted the modern version of the Bible that we know and recognize today.

As for Jesus, he is the real story.

Sadly, you've now veered off

into complete incredulity.

Is there any validity to the Zeitgeist movie?

I have watched some of the Zeitgeist movie and know the claims are false.

Is there any validity to the Zeitgeist movie?

Have you ever personally tried to prove the Bible false?

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

Even the Hippocratic Oath, echos this basic principal

"First do no harm"
Religion isn't necessarily the progenitor of morality . The libertarian philosophy is based on the non-violence principal. Hurting another human being is wrong unless it's in self defense. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that, and taking a life is the ultimate hurt. Every human is a unique individual worthy, worthy of respect and love until that individual's actions determine otherwise.

I believe an unborn child is worthy of the same respect for life and that no one has the moral authority to take another life except in self defense. A fetus isn't a human being you say? They have a beating heart at 1 month gestation, functioning ears at 5 months, they respond to their mothers voice, they startle at loud noises, they LOOK like babies as early as 12 weeks, before a woman even starts to show. Their personalities are showing long before they are born. My daughter was active all throughout my pregnancy and is still a very active girl. My son was so lazy I visited the doctor to make sure he was still ok at 6 months gestation, a characteristic he still exhibits today. When does a fetus become a human being? I don't know the answer to that, neither do you, neither does anyone else.

I'm an atheist, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and taking someone else's life is wrong, because this life is all you get. There is no afterlife, there is no Heaven or Hell, there are no ghosts. In the famous worlds of Will Munny " It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have"



Ignore, posted in wrong spot.

I'm the OP, so let me ask me question in a different way

According to atheists, when you die you turn into worm food. Then why does it even matter whether a person violated the NAP? Isn't the NAP just a man-made law? Isn't your advocacy for the NAP just rooted in personal preference? That adherence to the NAP will lead to good consequences?

I don't know if I'm considered an atheist

I'm definitely not a Christian, never will be. But, I believe in a soul, reincarnation, and a higher power (whatever you want to call it ["God"]). So, I believe we become more than worm food. That being said, I don't think the Non-Aggression Principle has anything to do with an afterlife. The NAP has to do with this life and making our current life better and those around us better. There are other principles that are similar, like the Don't Be an Asshole Principle. It's not a matter of postmortem repercussions; it's a matter of present living standards. If you violate the NAP, then your mind and soul are not connected with those you violate or everyone else you could act aggressively towards. In essence, you are not living up to what should be societal standards. The main reason we have government is to "protect" us from those who carelessly harm. If a high percentage of people lived by the NAP, government would be needed significantly less, which should be everybody's goal on this site. We're just doing our fair share.

How do you know the moral tenets of your faith are right?

The same way anybody else believes theirs is right, probably. They believe it and trust in what they believe. We all have faith. Even atheists.

-Matthew Good

Have you ever been to heaven?

can a christian murder and still go to the sky heaven? don't you just have to ask for forgiveness or get dunked/redunked in water? if you murder and then say 420 hail marys you're good to go right? why would you not murder then?

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms



I suppose the same question

I suppose the same question could be put to a Solipsistic Libertarian. Are you still Libertarian if you only desire your own freedom, right to privacy etc. And couldn't care less about anyone else's (considering you don't believe there even is anyone else)?

If I violate someone's rights, nothing happens to me.

depends on whose rights you violate. you could get shot and killed or just get an ass whoopin. not sure i follow your logic. i think you may be forgetting the "initiation" of force part of the nap. the nap does not promote pacifism.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms

Doesn't "justice" imply "self-ownership?"

The topic of property rights is closely related to the NAP, and the topic of property rights has been brought up in this thread. So I will address property rights a bit.

Some people are claiming that "property rights are not valid."

But consider the idea of "justice:"

1. John rapes Jane.
2. Everyone recognizes Jane as the "rape victim," and John as "the rapist."
3. Everyone recognizes that "Jane has lost something that BELONGED TO HER." (her sanity and calmness)
4. Everyone recognizes that "John must perform some action to repay Jane." (prison, fine, etc...)


Notice that 2, 3, and 4 REQUIRE that "self-ownership" (property rights) is recognized. Because if you maintain that "property rights are not valid," then Jane never owned her sanity and calmness to start with, heck maybe John was the rightful owner of "the sanity and calmness that Jane once experienced" to start with. Likewise, the rape does not "belong" to John; so why should we punish John? Why should Jane be upset directly with John?

You see the way we act IMPLIES things.

If "property rights are not valid," then you cannot defend "justice."

To the actual question

If NAP is right, why is it right?

1) Humans, like most animals will fight their hardest for one thing - continuation of their life.
2) When an animal is threatened with aggression they will fight back.
3) Fighting and defending expends huge amounts of energy and may required lost productivity to recover from injury.
4) So a society of two people who fight will necessarily be less efficient than a society of two who agree not to fight.
- one society will thrive in relation to the other.

This is Natural Law - God's Law communicated through His creation. You do not have to believe in God to determine that nature deems something ideal or consistent.

This is a fast approximation of how to answer the question.

You are really not asking a simple question - you cross epistemology, ontology, praxeology, ethics, and broadly philosophy. Modern education has all but eliminated these rational sciences in favor of generalizations and social norming.

I'd suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes.

Two modern works which are interesting are Ayn Rand'd "The Virtue of Selfishness" and Mises "Human Action".

What you've done in 1-4

is ground morality for NAP, not in itself, but in a higher value, "efficiency." You have not established why efficiency is good, or why a general efficiency is a moral obligation on any individual. Presumably because it can feed more mouths. Why is that a good? Good to whom?

You also tack on a point about one society thriving in relation to another, which is more of a survival of the fittest justification. On this principle, whatever survives is good, survival is its own justification. If violating NAP serves under some circumstances, it would be selected for and be good.

It would seem that through history, societies that did not practice NAP have thrived, whereas none which have practiced it are even known to have existed, let alone thrived. So this formulation would seem to be highly faulty.

Not sure how God fits in, or doesn't.

Why do you think

Morality comes from words in a book? Do you not know right or wrong without someone constantly telling you? Do you only do right when someone is watching or when there is punishment if you do wrong? This whole line of thinking that made you ask this question is peculiar.

Asclepius's picture

For those who believe in the Old Testament, morality

actually comes from eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil , the fruit of which was consumed by Adam and Eve. As a result of this 'first sin,' all of humanity is flawed and must only make moral decisions based on the written laws of the Authorities... Others may disagree, but this is one possible allegoric interpretation that might explain the 'peculiar' thinking you are talking about.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

violation of someones rights

violation of someones rights isnt immoral because of some theocratic code, its immoral because a person owns his own body and you violate his property. whether you believe you are granted humanity through god's creation or whether we are the result of some cosmic happening of chance and perfect biochemical condition that creates life, you still have ownership of your body, the labor it produces and the fruits of said labor.

St.Amant, LA...Libertarian Party of Ascension Parish

"If you don't own yourself, then WHO DOES own you?"

I agree with you.

"If you don't own yourself, then WHO DOES own you?"

If you reject property rights, then you are left to answer this question.

And if your answer is "someone else owns you..." then you are left with several strange and absurd contradictions. Such as "you yourself do not have a right to own YOUR OWN body, but you DO HAVE A RIGHT to own a person other than yourself."

Just a retarded position to defend, and ^^^ is IMPLICIT in the statement "people do not have property rights." Ayn Rand pointed this out.

why are property rights of

why are property rights of others sacrosanct? why do you say someone owns their body? who enforces this rule of body ownership?

do animals own their bodies too, and no one told them? if people woned their bodies naturally, then how could others prevent them from exercising that ownership?

no, human laws and rules are required to establish such a claim to ownership, it is not natural or inherent in nature, anymore than with animals.

what if someone wants to take others' property, and pass it to his descendants. seems that is what nature rewards, that is more natural than your nap principle.

This is an Insane question

This is exactly like some big government democrat or republican asking about some minutiae of your beliefs in hopes of a gotcha moment... while their whole philosophy revolves around garbage that has a thousand holes in it that can be knocked down by 1 or a 1000 simple questions...

How about you explain yourself? Where does your stupid belief in a white bearded savior in the sky come from?

If you can answer that one, I have 999 more behind.

Ron Paul 2012

Nevermind The Fact This White Bearded Man Was A False Prophet

"In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus predicts his second coming to be within the lifetime of his own followers. We all know how accurate that was. If a supposed prophet has even one prophecy fail, can he rightfully be called a prophet? The bible itself says no, in Deut. 18:22."

The above along with seemingly iron clad proof to back it up - showing how Bible commentary objections/explanations are obviously invalid (added this past week) is the latest addition to my article:

Amazing Little Known Facts - Proving How You Have Been Kept In The Dark

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Reply to your post

Amazing Little Known Facts - Proving How You Have Been Kept In The Dark

I'm going to focus on Deuteronomy in this comment in order to stay on topic, and because I think this book in particular breeds LESS violence, not more.

1. I disagree that the law on rape(in the city) is "dubious." One can see the consequences of ignoring this law in our prisons today. (22:23-24)

2. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NLT) "If a man is caught in the act of raping..." This translation is dubious. See the alternatives here: http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

3. The choice of words here is extremely misleading.
"1. Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
2. Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
3. Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7."

The phrase "that is different than your own" does not appear in those verses.
The phrase "that worship differently than you" does not appear in those verses.
The phrase "that are different than your own" does not appear in those verses.

This is law. Words matter. And you have changed the words.

This creeps up again when we come to the "false prophet" accusation. Deut 18:22
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD[YHUH], if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD[YHUH] hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Notice the phrase "when a prophet speaketh in the name..."

We would first ask ourselves if he was speaking "in the name." Then, if so, we PROVE what he said was false, despite our tendency to misunderstand. I'm not convinced. Still, none of that affects the obvious utility of the book of Deuteronomy. I encourage appreciation of that utility. For example, see the Shema, the greatest command. The individual we are talking about here encouraged us to keep that command. To me, that earns some benefit of the doubt, specially when dealing with ambiguous translations of witness testimony, of which you need at least 2 to establish the fact. (Deut 19:15)


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.