NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT (Re-Posted from elsewhere

http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/THE NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT

(Re-Posted from elsewhere for archival purposes.)

THE NAP IS AN EPISTEMIC TEST

The NAP is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL TEST. It lets us know what actions are ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, constructive or destructive of a peaceful social order.

The NAP states only that you do not INITIATE violence -aggression – against others or their property. It does not mean that we do not DEFEND ourselves or property if we or our property is subject to involuntary transfer or damage.

INSUFFICIENCY

We do not argue that the NAP is a SUFFICIENT informal institution for a social order. And it does not address formal institutions at all, only limits them. But it is SUFFICIENT test of ethics and morality for political statements in ANY social order. It is sufficient test of ethics and morality necessary for the development of a division of knowledge and labor. And the prosperity that results from a division of knowledge and labor is a universal demonstrated preference of all polities.

PROPERTY AS A SPECTRUM

The question that the NAP does not answer, is the definition of property and it’s distribution between the individual and the commons. That is because libertarian ethics does not allow for informal commons, only explicitly stated shareholder agreements as the vehicle for commons, and private property as the only form of property morally extant.

So the NAP does not expressly state that only private property exists and can exist, in a moral social order, but it is implied, and all libertarians simply assume it’s obvious (but it’s not.)

COMPACT WITH BROAD EXPLANATORY POWER

The NAP is an exceptionally good theory because it is COMPACT, has universal explanatory power, is testable and falsifiable both logically and empirically.

THE DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

Now, just so that I can help better intellectually arm fellow libertarians, there is a definition of property: “That which people act as if is their property.” We talk about PRIVATE property. And we advocate the reduction of all rights to PRIVATE property rights.

I’ve enumerated it here under ‘Scope of Property Rights’: http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/

THE ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

So it’s not that we lack a definition of property it’s that the allocation of property between the individual and the commons varies with the family structure that the individual comes from, and the structure of production he comes from, and the moral intuitions that he or she has, which appear to be genetic, and largely correlate gender.

THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN

As for liberty, I think that the definition of libertarian is well established and has finally been empirically established by data from Jonathan Haidt: libertarian is a preference to grant freedom from coercion higher moral status than the other five moral instincts. The left treats harm-care highest, and almost exclusively, and the right treats all six moral values equally.

That is what libertarians share in common. We simply use different arguments and different institutional solutions to advocate for our desired moral bias.

ARTICULATING OUR IDEAS

So neither of these statements helps us a great deal in arguing in FAVOR of libertarianism over some other clam. But they help us in articulating our ideas clearly.