the “non-aggression principle” is basically the libertarian way of saying “yeah we acknowledge that there is no way our ideal society will ever possibly come close to being close to getting to a stage of pre-starting so we’re not even gonna try”
I realize that this is meant to be a jab/joke, but it still feels like a good opportunity to say that it has no basis in ideals of that sort. The non-aggression principle is a fairly central aspect of political liberalism in general, and many people invoke that whenever making arguments for punishment where violence or destruction of private property has occurred.
Its nothing exclusive to libertarians, let alone all libertarians, and it subtly plays into legal arguments more often than people give it credit for.
I’m sorry for getting all boring and literalist, and I know that many reblogging this already get that, but in the spirit of comments I see on it all of the time I couldn’t help but offer that point.
This post has 12 notes.
- baseddzerzhinsky likes this
- almaza likes this
- rigatonideology likes this
- thepeacefulterrorist likes this
roxygen reblogged this from basednkrumah and added:
I realize that this is meant to be a jab/joke, but it still feels like a good opportunity to say that it has no basis in...
- pizzavanguard likes this
- jayaprada likes this
- enlightened-despot likes this
- memejacker posted this