Tuesday, October 6, 2015

More NAP (or ZAP) Crap

The Non-Aggression Principle (or Zero Aggression Principle) seems to be all Ten Commandments to a certain breed of libertarian. There are a lot of problems with it. First off, you absolutely cannot have a government without violating it, and it is therefore an anarchist principle, not a libertarian one, because if anarchists are libertarians, so are minarchists. So, basically, those who insist on the NAP are stating that the minarchists aren't libertarians.

Second, if we were all immortal Greek philosophers without spouses or children, it might work. Maybe. But just try bringing up children without violating the NAP. It'll take a lot of sophistry to explain why you can use force to keep your toddler from running into the traffic without being in violation of it.

Third, NAP aficionados really have to stop threatening me physically when I disagree with them. It really makes them look stupid.

Fourth (and this is the clincher) all these NAPers tell me that borders are imaginary social constructs yadda yadda yadda, and that it's a violation of the NAP to prevent people from immigrating across them. Even the flakes over at the Libertarian Church, Ayn Rand Synod, want some restrictions on immigration. So, if you'll think about it, the NAPsters are in total agreement with Hillary and Jeb and all the other candidates (except Trump) that it'll be perfectly fine if a billion Africans and Asians move in right away. Oh, the NAPistos will say that they of course don't want these new immigrants to vote themselves freebies to be paid for by present-day actual Americans, but that's of course what they'll do anyway. And like all other liberals, NAP libertarians care only about intentions. Results are completely irrelevant.

Fifth, it assumes that the whole human race is just like libertarians and their friends, (i. e., Whites of Christian or secular Christian background, of Northwest European origin), and automatically value ideas like individualism, justice, fairness, freedom, etc.  Of course, most members of the human race don't understand these ideas and would reject them if they did.

Finally, as I've said many times before, the NAP is at best the sort of thing people mutually agree to abide by, not some kind of law of nature. And you're a fool to try to live the principle around people who intend nothing of the sort... Like those billions of immigrants.

I found this over at. LNARS - Libertarian Nationalist American Robot Socialist. Since it's bound to be shot down by Disney pretty quick, look at it now and maybe save it for yourself.

Quibcag: The girls of Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina) demonstrate how the Non-Aggression Principle usually works out in real life.


  1. (I thought I put a logical end to the NAP, but "Nappers" apparently only read a few sentences and after that absorb nothing at all.)
    NAP under Intersubjectively verifiable property (IVP) is dead forever.
    Worse, it is like marx's labor theory of value, a conniving ruse to obscure the central problem: that property rights exist to prevent retaliation. And the purpose of law is to replace interpersonal and inter-kin, and inter-tribal retaliation with third party adjudication the results of which are insured by (meaning enforced by) the community.
    As such it is property-in-toto, not intersubjectively verifiable property that is the necessary basis of the independent common law, under rule of law, that obviates the need for an authoritarian government. Because only with total suppression of the means of retaliation do we suppress DEMAND FOR THE STATE.

    But then. Comic book libertarianism (Rothbardian libertinism) is appealing to children for it's simplicity.

    1. Curt Doolittle
      The Philosophy of Aristocracy
      The Propertarian Institute
      Kiev, Ukraine

  2. Try again. The Zero Aggression Principal means you don't start the fight but you sure as hell win it.It also does not mean you wait for the other guy to throw the first punch. It takes a lot of hard work to develop sufficient discernment to see a fight coming and act appropriately and a little luck to apply this ability. The first is up to you, I wish you as much of the second as you ned.

    1. Reductio. The question is (a) why not kill, enslave, rob you, and (b) sufficient rational incentive to join a voluntary polity, and (c) sufficient suppression of demand for authority.

      That's why.

  3. The try again refers to the 'net "eating " my first try to comment and me having to post my comment over again. It is not a snarky remark at the original post or replies Sorry for chaos I ma have created.