Defending the Non-Aggression Principle from some very dumb people...
...and one really smart one.
If you ask a libertarian what libertarianism is, you’ll often hear them refer to the Non-Aggression (NAP) — or Zero-Aggression Principle (ZAP), per the great Gerard Casey, who prefers that term.
They both mean the same thing. Basically that libertarians favor a legal system where people are free to do anything they like, provided they don’t initiate force or fraud against other peaceful people.
It’s really just a short-hand for a system of property rights and freedom of association and all the legal principles that flow from such things. Saying, “Libertarians believe in the NAP.” is a little easier to explain than all that.
But amazingly, there are libertarians, even very smart and accomplished ones, who think the NAP is useless (worse than useless, in fact) and should be discarded.
The biggest “name” out there throwing shade on the NAP is probably David Friedman, son of the famous Milton Friedman and one smart cookie. I saw David debate Gene Epstein on the topic at PorcFest in 2023. There he made the bewildering claim that libertarians “don’t even believe in the NAP”.
To demonstrate this, he used a thought experiment: Suppose you slip and fall off your 10th story balcony and are plunging to your certain death. Luckily you are just able to grab onto a flag hanging from a pole attached to the balcony of the apartment immediately below yours.
As you attempt to clamber up to safety, the owner of the apartment (and the flag and flagpole) informs you that you do not have his permission to use his property (the flag) and to please let go immediately.
Since (presumably) all of us libertarians would ignore the wishes of the property owner and clamber up anyway, then, “Aha!” it proves we are a bunch of hypocrites who don’t believe in the NAP at all! We’re full of hot air! We should quit speaking this way!
Friedman is being really silly here, for such a smart guy.
The NAP is a principle. It’s meant to inform a structure of law. Again, it’s a short-hand for a system of property rights and legal principles that flow from a serious respect for property rights. It’s not some personal rule that is inviolable.
I would violate the NAP, under the right circumstances. I definitely would violate the NAP in Friedman’s contrived example. I would also admit that I’ve violated the law when I did so.
I would save my life. I would defy the wishes of the owner of property. If he really wanted to be a jerk about it, I would pay whatever legal restitution or penalty the law required.
This isn’t a contradiction. It’s how principles work. It’s the difference between the law and your own personal code of ethics.
It boggles my mind that a guy as smart as Friedman can’t see such an obvious point. Gene Epstein did his best to make this very case, but Friedman was unmoved.
On a slightly different front, sometimes libertarians complain that “The NAP doesn’t tell me exactly who is at fault in particular edge cases - of which there are many. Therefore, what use is it?”
These people don’t get it. Principles must be applied to specific contexts. Particular judges might issue opinions that are at odds with one another. That doesn’t mean the principle is worthless. It means that life is messy and human brains are fallible.
But even so, this bottom-up, principle-focused approach to law is how we humans invented the concept (see common law) and it’s still the right approach. Top down legislation is an abomination.
But I digress.
Point is, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the NAP (or the ZAP). Don’t listen to silly people when they say there is, no matter how smart they are or who’s kid they are.
And if you want to learn more about such smarty-pants things, I highly recommend doing so online at Liberty Classroom. It’s a treasure-trove of wisdom and knowledge. Check it out!
Naturally,
Adam