Opinion of the Non-Agression Principle (NAP)

[Lechasseur]

?

[darklordoftech]

Freedom Principle. It's the basis for all human rights, democracy, and state protection from crime.

[courts]

naive

[Goldwater]

naive

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What if a parent is abusing their child? Ditto for spousal violence.

[TPIG]

It obviously has its flaws and exceptions, but society would be a better place, overall, if more people believed in this principle.

[HillGoose]

no, pre-empting evildoers is always the best option

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The guiding principle behind a free society.

[TJ in Oregon]

Absolutely catastrophic idea that if followed sincerely as a governing policy would cause society to completely collapse.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What if a parent is abusing their child? Ditto for spousal violence.

Either of those would violate the NAP, so some kind of intervention would be warranted under it to address the violence and abuse, as long as it is not destructive or more heavy-handed than necessary.


NAP is worth keeping in mind when creating policy. It's too easy to forget that the implementation of law carries within it some implicit threat of force, and so creates an opportunity for oppression and violence. But the practical limitations of NAP have to be recognized. It would seem to imply a purely reactive form of government, but sometimes it is necessary to be proactive to address conditions of exploitation, disadvantage, tragedy of the commons, etc. By addressing the conditions out of which contentious social interactions arise it may even be possible to prevent the need for more forceful government intervention than if one were merely reactive.

[DavidB.]

Good principle for interpersonal relationships, disastrous principle for governance.