Category: Philosophy

The median libertarian out there on the internet (especially in the sad pits of Reddit) seriously thinks the non-aggression principle does work in favor of their preferred economic institutions. Even notable people like Jason Kuznicki of Cato can get sucked into this stupidity, though from what I recall of our last run in, he has… Continue reading Fun game: identify the aggressor in this animated gif

To rehash: the only world that follows the non-aggression principle is the grab-what-you-can world. In this word “nobody initiates force directly against another person’s body, but subject to that constraint, people regularly grab any external resource they can get their hands on, regardless of who has made or been using the resource.” This world follows… Continue reading Salvaging Non-Aggression for Egalitarianism

When I use the word violence in the context of discussing theories of property, I mean a specific thing by it: acting upon the bodies of others without their consent. This is as neutral a definition of “violence” as you will find. It is the definition of violence implied by the concept of self-ownership. It… Continue reading No violence but personal violence

I’ve argued here and elsewhere that property is an institution of involuntary, violent, coercive aggression (I, II, III, IV, V, et al). These arguments are clearly correct, but they are lacking in one important respect: they don’t constitute a full descriptive account of the institution of property. They describe certain characteristics of property — that… Continue reading Violence Vouchers: A Descriptive Account of Property

Consider this tweet: In a truly liberal society, anyone could refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason http://t.co/UxqCQKYyb4 — JustinGreen4000 (@JGreenDC) March 7, 2014 Now ask yourself this question: can people in the U.S. refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason? The answer is clearly yes. If… Continue reading What do voluntary mean?