8 replies to this topic

[Murphy]

What is the nonaggression axiom?

[Murphy]

Doug K, on Nov 4 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

"No man or group of men may aggress against the person or proberty of anyone else" where 'aggression' is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or proprty of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

From Rothbard - For a New Liberty, 2. Property and Exchange.

Right. Sometimes applying this gets a little fuzzy--e.g. if someone points a gun at me, but doesn't pull the trigger, does that count? But yes, that's the axiom.

[Murphy]

Mart Grams, on Jul 21 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

No one can take or threaten myself or property.

Well, your answer is close, but by itself it would be misleading. If you steal my TV and put it in your house, then most libertarians would have no problem if I come uninvited onto your property to retrieve it, and even threaten you.

So that's why the axiom has the idea of initiation in it.

[Murphy]

Mart Grams, on Sep 14 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

Self-defense and "getting even" okay then???

Sorry I'm not understanding you here.

[Murphy]

Mart Grams, on Sep 27 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

Is it okay to defend oneself against attack, due to the other is the initiator?? Yes I think so. But, if the attacker is fleeing, or is done with you, does that give you a "get even" card: to retaliate at a leter time? It the right to use force okay only in the immediate situation to prevent harm, or is it carried over until evened back out. I understand to retrieve property, but what about physical harm?

Hmm that's a tricky point. I think Rothbard's answer is, you have the right to inflict up to twice the original injury. So if a mugger gives you a black eye and takes $100 from you, I think Rothbard would say you have the right to take $200 from him and give him two black eyes. But if you shoot him and kill him, then you have exceeded your rights.