fbpx

The Non-Aggression Principle

Over at Libertarianism.org, Matt Zwolinski gives six reasons why he does not believe that the non aggression principle can function as the sole principle of libertarian theory.  His six reasons are that the principle:

1. Prohibits all pollution

2. Prohibits small harms for large benefits

3. Adopts an all-or-nothing attitude toward risk (either, depending on how one interprets the principle, prohibiting or allowing all actions that impose risk on others)

4. Does not generate a prohibition on fraud

5. Is parasitic on a theory of property (since defining force depends on a prior theory of property rights), and

6. Seems to generate unacceptable positions as to children (such as allowing a parent to starve his child).

I agree that all of these are problems for the non-agression principle.  This is one of the reasons that I moved from a natural rights foundation for my libertarianism to an indirect consequentialist approach.  In my view, an indirect consequentialist approach addresses each of these points directly and gets at attractive results.

(Indirect consequentialism holds that individual actors should not calculate utilities but instead should follow rules or other guides.  While rule utilitarianism is a kind of indirect consequentialism, I advocate a version that derives the indirect aspects not from an assumption that we should follow rules, but based on an argument that following rules leads to the best consequences.)

Of course, many people, upon hearing a reference to consequentialism, immediately claim that it leads to all kinds of unacceptable results.  Many of these people are libertarians.  Strangely, these are people who believe that liberty produces great results.  But these are matters for another post.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on April 12, 2013 at 02:42:33 am

Bruce Graeme April 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In F. A. Hayek and the Concept of Coercion, Rothbard states that “It seems clear that the fundamental problem is Hayek’s use of ” coercion” as a portmanteau term to include, not only physical violence but also voluntary, nonviolent, and non-invasive actions such as nagging. The point, of course, is that the wife or husband is free to leave the offending partner, and that staying together is a voluntary choice on his or her part. Nagging might be morally or aesthetically unfortunate, but it is scarcely “coercive” in any sense similar to the use of physical violence.”

However, suppose that the wife or husband leaves the offending partner, but the offending partner in response starts stalking and bullying in public his wife or husband. I find it hard to see this not as a case of coercion.

Or consider mobbing in the workplace. Done by colleagues, subordinates or superiors, the goal of mobbing is to force someone out, using gossip, ostracism, innuendo, humiliation, ridicule, intimidation, and just plain meanness. Many suicides are the result of mobbing in the workplace. Wouldn’t that be a case of coercion inflicted on an employe? Must the employe terminate his employment voluntarily in order to be free from mobbing behaviors?

http://propertyandfreedom.org/2012/11/hans-hermann-hoppe-the-hayek-myth-pfs-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-12020

read full comment
Image of Bruce Graeme
Bruce Graeme

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.