The Non-Aggression Principle and David Friedman: I owe this man an apology!

In last Friday’s article, I mentioned two groups of libertarians that I thought made near mirror-image errors about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

In it, I said that some libertarians consider the NAP a moral absolute that should guide/restrict your behavior 100% in all conceivable situations, even going so far as to say that they wouldn’t steal one penny to save the Earth and everyone on it from being destroyed by space aliens.

There are other libertarians who say that since the NAP can’t tell a person what they should or shouldn’t do in 100% of all conceivable situations that it is therefore completely useless and should never be mentioned again.

It was this latter group that I mistakenly lumped David Friedman into.

In my opinion, the correct view of the NAP is that it is a moral principle that rests on a libertarian conception of property rights, and that these things together make a wonderful foundation for a libertarian legal system. I also pointed to works by the great libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella to support my argument.

In regards the bizarre hypothetical created by a member of “group 1”, I said I’d go ahead and steal the penny, save the Earth, and rely on the kind understanding of my “victim” and any court/jury/arbiter that are called to consider the matter. Oh, and I’d repay the penny, of course.

Again, check out my article for a fuller explanation.

I lumped David Friedman into the wrong bucket based on a debate he had with the great Gene Epstein of the Soho Forum at PorcFest in 2023. The resolution was something roughly like: “The right way to persuade people of libertarianism is by showing that its outcomes are superior by their own standards, and not rely on the ‘flawed’ NAP”.

In his opening statement, David Friedman said that the NAP, as it’s usually presented, is an absolute rule. And if that’s the case, then nobody (including libertarians) believes in the NAP, as evidenced by the flagpole example (originally coined by Bill Bradford of Liberty Magazine) I mentioned in my previous article.

During the whole debate, David drags the NAP around the yard and kicks the heck out of it, which is why I misremembered his actual stance. What I forgot was his caveat about the NAP “as it is usually presented — as an absolute rule”.

David Friedman’s actual position on the NAP, which he made in a comment to my article on Substack is the following:

“My position is, and has been for a very long time, that the NAP is a useful rule of thumb but not an absolutely binding constraint, to be violated only when there is a very large cost to obeying it.”

I think “rule of thumb” is a rather drab way to describe a foundational principle of a legal order, but essentially, I think his view lines up exactly with mine.

So, I’m very sorry, David. My mistake.

I’ve invited David on my show Haman Nature to apologize “in person” and talk about this and other interesting things in the realm of economics or anarchism. I hope he accepts. I think he will. He’s a brilliant and fascinating man.

Naturally,

Adam

PS: I still think Gene Epstein argued the correct side in that debate. Check it out. If you do, you’ll notice I cribbed a lot of my arguments and perspective directly from him.

Thanks, Gene!