Today’s Horrible Hot Take: Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle
Who post it at all?
"From this principle, many libertarians believe, the rest of libertarianism can be deduced as a matter of mere logic. What is the proper libertarian stance on minimum wagelaws? Aggression, and therefore wrong. What about anti-discrimination laws? Aggression, and therefore wrong. Public schools? Same answer. Public roads? Same answer. The libertarian armed with the NAP has little need for the close study of history, sociology, or empirical economics. With a little logic and a lot of faith in this basic axiom of morality, virtually any political problem can be neatly solved from the armchair."
"...by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, I could provide life-saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children? Even if we grant that taxation is aggression, and that aggression is generally wrong, is it really so obvious that the relatively minor aggression involved in these examples is wrong, given the tremendous benefit it produces?"
- Who decides that something is a "tremendous benefit"?
- What kind of moral is it? Where does it stop? Can I rob the supermarket of my neighborhood and give the money to some hungry poor children?
- Either you do believe in market force, or not. The author probably, he doesn't.
- Also, where does this thought is leading? If the state could steal our money to give vaccination, why can't it also steal some more to provide healthcare or food? Where exactly does it stop? Who decides?
I found this to be valuable: