Precisely defining aggression under the NAP
Posted by Madphilosopher3@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 4 comments
Proponents of the non-aggression principle are often rightly criticized for presuming a theory of property when determining who the aggressor is in conflicts over scarce resources. It is therefore incumbent upon us to provide a precise definition of aggression, one capable of logically deducing a property theory consistent with the principle’s underlying intention: peaceful coexistence on terms others can accept.
Upon close examination, aggression can be more accurately defined as the provocation of conflict through the involuntary imposition of costs on another agent. This reframing captures the essence of coercion: it is not merely the use of force, but any act that externalizes costs onto others without their consent. Defined in this way, the NAP does not rely on a preexisting property framework, it generates one.
From this understanding, the labor theory of property naturally emerges as the most coherent and morally consistent account of ownership. When an individual mixes their labor with unowned natural resources (through time, effort, and capital) they incur costs to produce value that did not exist before. To appropriate the fruits of that labor without consent is to shift those costs back onto the producer, depriving them of the value their efforts created and thus provoking conflict. In contrast, recognizing their right to exclusive use of that product preserves peaceful relations by internalizing costs and benefits to those who created them.
This understanding aligns property rights with the very purpose of the non-aggression principle: to prevent the provocation of conflict by ensuring that no one is forced to bear costs they did not choose. It also grounds property in an observable and universal criterion (productive contribution) rather than arbitrary claims of possession or power.
Edit: This post expands on a recent article I wrote which develops the NAP from a Rule-Preference Utilitarian foundation.
natermer@reddit
NAP is shorthand for common law and property rights. If you are arguing with somebody over property rights and they don't believe in property rights then it is useless to invoke "NAP".
This doesn't make sense because property rights imposes costs on other people involuntarily.
For example if I own a apple tree and you are my neighbor, but I forbid you to use it then I cost you the use of one apple tree. The fact that it costs me for you to use my apple tree doesn't mean that it doesn't cost you to deny you access to it.
It costs you, no you don't have a choice in the matter, and if you do choose to steal apples from the tree when I am not looking then you have violated my rights and, thus, are guilty of violating NAP.
Another point is that provoking conflict is not necessary for conflict to exist.
As in conflict is something that happens simply by existing in a world with lots of other humans. Property and people exist in finite amounts and there are essentially limitless desires and numbers of ways to use any of them.
Property rights are a hard requirement for finding resolutions to conflicts.
It doesn't matter if you believe in property rights or not. It doesn't matter if you are socialist, communist, anarchist, or believe in the divine right of kings to rule the entire planet. Whatever system you want, whatever system you create, whatever system you happen to be born into requires having a way to decide who gets to use what.
A thousand people cannot use a hammer simultaneously, they can't all use the same bed at the same time, they can't all occupy the same space at the same time. You need a way to figure out who gets to use what where when. It could be a democratically elected bureaucratic, pure aggressive violence, decided by tribal elders, rochambeau or any other system of determining usage.
Thus property rights is a emergent property of human society. It can't be avoided.
The system of PRIVATE property rights based on common law is the one NAP describes. This isn't something that somebody created through academic study or theory. It is something that evolved over tens of thousands of years along with human society.
Our very system of writing and mathematics was created through economic trade. Writing was developed through describing ownership and contracts. Math was created through people struggling to account for things. Finding the origins of money and property is impossible to do in a absolute manner because it predates history. There are, very literally, no records that go back that far.
That is how fundamental it is to the human experience.
At the very core of NAP and private property is the right to self ownership. Your physical body is a good and that good is owned by somebody. If it isn't owned by you then it is owned by somebody else. Whether it be some king or collective or whatever.
Self ownership and the ability to exercise private property rights is the very thing that separates slavery from freedom. It is definition. A free man can has liberty, which is the ability to exercise is rights. A slave, in the modern sense, is denied those rights.
sssanguine@reddit
If anyone here has ever read any Rothbard you’d understand he’s a pedant. This works in MES and Power + Markets because they’re economic in nature (econ is science adjacent). This blows up in his NAP works because NAP is just what he feels should be true. Nowhere in any of his NAP works does he propose a definition of aggression that satisfies anything but his moral whims. From a scientific POV aggression is an evolutionary trait that ~all animal kingdom species have. Nature is the longest running, and most successful experiment in history. If it wasn’t for aggression we wouldn’t be here. Any theory that doesn’t respect nature, shouldn’t be respected.
Bagain@reddit
I agree with your premise, the problem, as I see it, is down stream. As is the case now, rules (laws) are never air tight. There is an entire industry built around this. Loopholes are bread and butter for high priced lawyers to bend reality for the desired outcome of their client; this will never change. We all want less laws but this requires broader language which simply equates to bigger and bigger loopholes and more maneuverability to negotiate for those with the legalese to do so. Making the NAP as accurate as possible is not a bad thing but interpreting it and abusing it will not be different than now. Companies destroy a water source for a whole town then go to war in court with million dollar retainer lawyers, spending a decade fighting just to get a slap on the wrist while children die of cancer… people get sued for saying things other people don’t like and have their lives destroyed because they hurt someone’s feelings. The societal condition is as much an issue as wording on guidelines.
MeasurementNice295@reddit
Ultimately, someone has to decide, as there is no programming of reality for us to look, except private justice would do a much better job at preventing injustice since the ones calling the shots are also in the line, and wouldn't need to spend resources in obvious victimless crimes, for starters.