Comment: Aggression

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't see that as a contradiction (see in situ)

Aggression

The contradiction is the belief that because we have child labor laws noone would want to employ children under a certain age. Or because we have drug laws noone would want to do drugs. The state is not the moralistic equivalent of good behaviour, it is solely and everywhere within it's geographical area the initiation of force.

You are expecting the same administration, or state, to protect you from the misgivings of the freemarket as is the same entity to hold title to property over us all, however as seen with BP,

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Obama-Administrati...

they cannot be trusted with such endeavors. So if we are to accept the non-aggression principal in Libertarianism this would mean property rights violations would not use force from within the state to employ them. It would have to come from an entity that both parties are mutually assured in allowing conviction from. OR, it could also come from, as shown off the Bionic Mosquito site,:

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/02/decentralization-...

decentralized societies. Kern's important work on this subject needs further review if one is to accept such ideas and/or see how they were employed.

http://www.amazon.com/Kingship-Law-Middle-Ages-Constitution/...

Hope this helps to clarify....