Libertarianism stands or falls on the Non-Aggression Principle

I suppose if something is worth repeating once it is worth repeating again.

And again.

The entire philosophy of libertarianism rests on the Non-Aggression Principle: (NAP) No one may initiate coercion, violence or aggression against an innocent person or their property.

At the risk of sounding like the monk reading the Book of Armaments from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Libertarianism is the NAP, no more, no less. NAP is the foundation of libertarianism and the foundation of libertarianism is the NAP. Libertarianism does not deal with matters pertaining to religion or personal morality. It is not a religion and does not pretend to replace the State as an object of worship. It does not provide a purpose or meaning for one’s life or existence.

Once you add anything else to the NAP, it because something more than libertarianism. Once you remove the NAP, it ceases to be libertarianism.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of understanding and accepting the NAP. To accept it is to reject all that runs counter to it, which includes the apparatuses of the State and all other forms of coercion and aggression carried out in society. It brings about a transformation of a person’s politics, but most importantly their perspective of life. One is never the same.

Eric Peters writes:

And once you do, there is no turning back. Awareness of the NAP is not unlike having knowledge of good and evil, as per the Adam and Eve story. Indeed, it is exactly that. Knowledge of good – and of evil. And once you do know – once one comes face to face with the NAP – you must decide on which side of the fence you stand. There is no more ambiguity. No more gray area. Either you embrace aggressive violence – or reject it.

There is no in-between. There can be no in-between.

I can personally attest to this. Once I became aware of the Non-Aggression Principle a few years ago, I realized that no form of government could be rationally justified. From the moment I comprehended the true definition of government as an entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence over a certain section of land, I rediscovered beliefs I had long put aside after being told they were beyond the realm of reasonable opinion.

Once you accept the NAP, you cease to be an aggressor and become a true man or woman of peace. To embrace the NAP is to step out of the darkness of political barbarism and savagery and into the light of the politically civilized (whether one is civilized in other areas is another matter, of course).

To paraphrase Martin Luther’s statement on his belief in sola fide (salvation by faith alone), libertarianism stands or falls on the NAP. It cannot stand on any other foundation.

This entry was posted in libertarianism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Libertarianism stands or falls on the Non-Aggression Principle

  1. Pingback: Salon really doesn’t like libertarians, or know what it means to be one | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  2. D says:

    Couldnt agree with you more. Have you found any libertarian authors who discuss, in a realistic manner, theoretical violent repurcussions towards those who violate NAP? Or the fact that war will continue to exist? Or that in order to have libertarianism you have to be ready to use force and violence?


    • The Question says:

      That is actually the hardest question of all, and I have yet to find a libertarian who has a practical, realistic approach besides nonviolence, activism, or outright violent resistance. I’m trying to formulate a model on my own, but all methods have their inherent risks, which is something I need to address in a future post.


  3. Pingback: To the State, Lack of Tribal Loyalty Justifies Double Standards In Wars | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  4. Pingback: Anti-Libertarian Argument Makes Faulty Assumptions: Anarchy is about Rules, Not Rulers | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  5. Pingback: White Male Privilege Is Another Social Justice Myth to Justify the State | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  6. Pingback: Basic Questions for Social Justice Warriors on “Privilege” | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  7. Pingback: Ron Paul Properly Defines Libertarianism | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  8. Pingback: A Libertarian Who Returns to Their Vomit | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  9. Pingback: Libertarian Republic Goes Full Retard | The Anarchist Notebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s