This parlays into the other cornerstone of libertarianism: the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) states that you cannot initiate force against another person or group of people or delegate doing so to another person or group of people. This does not preclude people from acting violently in self defense, however.
The latter part of that statement is the most important part. But it's the former part of the statement that is more familiar because it sounds a lot like the Golden Rule. Most people recognize the moral argument in the first part of NAP that asserts that I can't attack you, steal from you, or commit fraud against you. I can't go into your home, hold a gun to your head, and force you to give me one of your 3 cars because I only have 1. But for some reason, we have become accustomed to allowing this same use of force and coercion to happen when we cloak it in the robes of government and slap a supposedly humanitarian label on it. This goes against the latter part of NAP which states that you cannot delegate violence to another person or group of people. This includes government.
Here's a short video that explains very simply these exact concepts:
So this is the basis of liberty and libertarianism. It is within this context that libertarians view most political or moral dilemmas. It is a consistent set of principles from which to base a decision on. It's not just an arbitrary opinion or the desire for my will to usurp someone else's, which constitutes a large portion of the push-pull and political divide between the two leading political parties.
Using this as a jumping off point, we'll apply these principles and the philosophy of liberty to look at news headlines, world news, and other current events trending around the globe.
Are you on-board with the NAP? Let us know in the comments below!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thoughtful and civil comments appreciated!