You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Answer to a Common Critique of the Non-Aggression Principle.

in #anarchy6 years ago (edited)

Self-ownership as defined by the voluntaryist philosophy is defined based on biological and metaphysical reality. I cannot speak for you more directly than you can, or move your arms for you directly, as you can. You are the highest, most direct executor of your body and mind’s actions. Thus, this self-ownership can never extend to groups/collectives. As Mises said, “Only the individual thinks. Only the individual acts.”

Any individual rejecting the NAP may do so ethically only if this individual does not act on said rejection in violence. One may reject that others should not be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise violated, but those that believe they should not are still self owners who have not consented to such abuses, regardless of the rejector’s predilections and feelings. In rejecting this, though, one also rejects one’s own natural law right not to be violated.

In order for a minimally violent community/society anywhere to be created, this respect for self-ownership objectively must be the grundnorm, otherwise, arbitrary, non-reality-based ideas such as “divine right” inevitably potentiate and create violent conflict.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.12
JST 0.027
BTC 60771.43
ETH 3271.80
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.44