Non Aggression Principle: Strategic Restraint and Ethical Warfare in Modern Conflict

By Fouad Sabry

What is Non Aggression Principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, is the legal or moral rule that states that any person is permitted to do everything with their property except aggression, which is in turn defined as the initiation of forceful action, which is in turn defined as 'the application or threat of' 'physical interference or fraud ', any of which without consent. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force.The principle incorporates universal enforceability.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Non-aggression principle

Chapter 2: Anarcho-capitalism

Chapter 3: Murray Rothbard

Chapter 4: Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property

Chapter 5: Libertarian perspectives on immigration

Chapter 6: Libertarian perspectives on abortion

Chapter 7: Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Chapter 8: Self-ownership

Chapter 9: Night-watchman state

Chapter 10: Anarchism and capitalism

(II) Answering the public top questions about non aggression principle.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Non Aggression Principle.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 3, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Non-aggression principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP), sometimes known as the non-aggression axiom, is a concept in which aggression, defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference (violating or breaching activity) against an individual, his or her property, or his or her person, is prohibited. There is no singular or universal understanding or definition of the NAP, with differing interpretations pertaining to the treatment of intellectual property, force, abortion, and other matters.

Some consider the non-aggression principle a key concept in libertarianism, voluntarism, anarcho-capitalism, and minarchism.

The idea was derived from a variety of philosophical perspectives, including:

Some contemporary right-libertarian theorists justify the non-aggression principle by appealing to the praxeological presuppositions of any ethical discourse, an argument pioneered by the anarcho-capitalist scholar Hans Hermann Hoppe. According to them, arguing for the beginning of aggression is inconsistent with the non-aggression principle. Among its proponents is Stephen Kinsella.

Some proponents of the non-aggression principle base it on rule utilitarianism or rule egoism. Although violations of the non-aggression principle cannot be said to be objectively immoral, adherence to it almost always results in the greatest possible outcomes, and so it should be regarded as a moral guideline, according to these perspectives. David D. Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek are among these scholars.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism rejected natural or inborn rights theories as well as supernatural claims, proposing instead a philosophy based on observable reality and an ethics based on the factual necessities of human life in a social context.

The legal doctrine of estoppel, according to Stephan Kinsella, implies and validates the non-aggression principle.

Both libertarian proponents and opponents of abortion rights base their arguments on the NAP. In order to assess whether or not abortion is consistent with the NAP, it must be determined at what developmental period a fertilized human egg cell can be deemed a person with the status and rights associated with personhood. Some proponents of the NAP claim that this occurs at the moment of conception, while others contend that because the fetus lacks sentience until a certain point of development, it does not qualify as a human being and may be regarded the mother's property. However, abortion opponents argue that sentience is not a qualifying element. They relate to the animal rights debate and highlight the argument from marginal situations that the NAP also extends to non-sentient (i.e., mentally disabled) humans.

The NAP has been described as applying against all unauthorized acts against a person's property. Supporters of the NAP are divided as to whether it should apply to intellectual property rights in addition to physical property rights.

Although the NAP is intended to ensure an individual's sovereignty, libertarians have vastly different opinions regarding the circumstances in which the NAP applies. An significant issue is uninvited intervention by others, either to prevent society from being hurt by an individual's actions or to prevent an incompetent individual from being harmed by his own actions or inactions.

Some libertarians support the existence of a minimum state on the grounds that anarcho-capitalism implies that the non-aggression principle is optional because competition exists in the enforcement of laws.

Some proponents of the NAP view taxes as a breach of the NAP, whilst detractors of the NAP claim that due to the free-rider problem in the event that security is a public good, sufficient funds would not be available by voluntary ways to defend individuals from increasing aggression. The latter tolerate taxation, and therefore a violation of the NAP with respect to free-riders, so long as no more is levied than is required to maximize protection of persons from violence. Geolibertarians, who subscribe to the Lockean labor theory of property like classical economists and Georgists, think that land value taxes is perfectly compatible with the NAP.

Anarcho-capitalists claim that the protection of individuals from aggression is self-sustaining, just like any other useful service, and that it can be provided without compulsion by the free market far more effectively and efficiently than by a government monopoly.

Supporters of the NAP frequently cite it to claim that stealing, vandalism, sexual assault, assault, and fraud are immoral. Unlike pacifism, the non-aggression concept does not prohibit self-defense or the defense of others through the use of force.

Critics contend that the non-aggression principle is unethical because it opposes the initiation of force, even when they regard the outcomes of such initiation to be morally preferable to the alternatives they have provided. Philosopher Matt Zwolinski has suggested the following scenario in opposition to the NAP "Suppose that by