The original article can be read at The Nolan Chart here.
J.H. Bennett argues that the Non-Aggression Principle, used as a basis for law, is self-refuting, and believers in it must therefore be pacifists. How sound is his argument?
The Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP — the principle that it is morally wrong, and should be legally prohibited, for any person or group to initiate force against any other person or group — has long been central to libertarian political thought.… Read more ...
Mr. Colborne saw our discussion on IPR regarding Brett Pojunis, LP of Nevada’s current chair and candidate for the chairmanship of the Libertarian National Committee, rejecting the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). I asked in a comment if this was a recent development, and David contacted me with some information. He wrote this proposal, which has very recently been passed.… Read more ...
Posted to a Facebook Page dedicated to the LP’s NAP
… Read more ...The NAP Pledge is as follows: To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
The Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party states: [W]e support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others.
Posted to www.ruwart.com
Is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) Dead?
October 9, 2015 By Mary Ruwart
Recently, the NAP has been the subject of a number of blogs posted by people who question its ethical basis, practicality, and universality. As someone who has written extensively on this subject for over two decades, I thought I’d weigh in.… Read more ...