What is the Non-Aggression Principle?

One of the most accurate and concise definitions of the Non-Aggression Principle (or NAP) that I could find is asserted by the Mises Wiki:

“The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violentself-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.”

Why Is the Non-Aggression Important?

As humans interact within society, conflicts inevitably will arise. How those conflicts are resolved largely determines how successful that society can be. Economics does much to explain human interaction and decision-making. However, as with any science, economics is amoral–that is, it can objectively tell you the results of a given situation, but it cannot subjectively label those results as good or bad. Think of physics, for example: you can use quantum mechanics to learn how to make an atomic bomb, but physics can’t tell you whether you should or shouldn’t drop that bomb on a city. In much the same way, economics can tell us what the consequences of minimum wage laws are, but economics alone cannot establish moral arguments for or against such policies. “Political science” has to start somewhere to establish how our society handles conflicts.

Enter the NAP

Common Misconceptions of the NAP

1. Non-Aggression means Pacifism

Many people’s knee-jerk response upon initial introduction to the NAP is “well, what if I’m attacked? If I can’t use violence, then peaceful people will be overrun by those who don’t obey the NAP!”

To clear this up, it’s important to understand the difference between aggression and violence.

Pacifism is the belief that no individual has the right to use violence in defending himself against violent attack.

Let’s be clear: violence (in and of itself) does not violate the NAP. “Aggression” inherently implies the lack of provocation. When the bad guy pulls out a switchblade and tries to stab Walker Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris’ roundhouse kick to his face is most certainly violent, but it is defensive, not aggressive.

 

2. Aggression is only physical

One objection I’ve heard is that the NAP wouldn’t prevent threats and non-physical harms. There’s a common expression that goes: “your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins.” Whereas that is a witty way of advocating personal liberty, it’s not exactly true. There’s good reason the NAP is also known as the Anti-Coercion Principle (although “ACP” lacks the quip of “NAP”).

Obviously, I can’t pull out a gun and start spraying bullets over a crowded street and claim innocence if no one is physically injured. Blaring loud music at 2:00am in a populated neighborhood is not physically harmful, so how could anyone who holds to the NAP complain?

Think of it this way: does a dog have to physically bite you for it to be determined to be “aggressive?” No. The NAP works in a similar manner. There are particular actions that can be determined as aggressive even outside physical contact. Menacingly swinging my fist at your face and recklessly firing bullets over your head are aggressive behaviors.

Most of the world’s legal systems do a decent job defining assault, which is coercive behavior:

“An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.”

As for cases such as blaring loud music at obscene hours of the night: in situations where there is a conflict of freedom between two or more parties (freedom to sleep vs. freedom to listen to music), the NAP is the perfect arbitrator. A jury need only determine who the aggressor was.

3. The NAP claims to solve all problems easily and neatly.

Supporting the NAP does not make a person a utopian. On one hand, I suppose that one could metaphysically postulate that if no one ever violated the NAP, the world would see perfect peace and prosperity. However, that is not the NAP’s ultimate purpose. It is derived from, and intended to work in, an imperfect world with imperfect (even evil) people. The Non-Aggression Principle helps clarify what actions we should regard as socially unacceptable. It helps determine who is in the wrong when there is conflict. For instance, free speech is a known right because insulting someone is not aggression, but locking someone in a cage because they insult someone is coercive. However, if someone malignantly yells “fire!” in a crowded theatre causing a stampede, such an action can be considered aggression, especially if persons or property are damaged as a result (which would be fraud, a form of coercion).

When human conflicts do occur, sometimes it is very difficult to establish exactly who committed the initial aggression. Who was the bad guy? Situations and relationships are complex. Determining what constitutes aggression is an ongoing process of discovery (the internet age has ushered in a new wave complex issues surrounding digital property). Misunderstandings and ethical dilemmas are a part of life that will never be eliminated no matter how much legislation is passed nor how many people adopt the NAP.

 

4. Belief in the NAP is a person’s foundation of morality

Lastly, it should be made clear that advocates of the NAP aren’t saying that any actions that aren’t aggressive are morally acceptable. You may or may not believe drinking alcohol is wrong, but if you do, that doesn’t give you (or the government) the right to use violence against someone who distills whiskey. Infidelity is wrong, but it shouldn’t be illegal. Succinctly stated: all aggression is immoral, but not all immorality is aggressive.

 

Conclusion:

There have been many objections to the Non-Aggression Principle over the years; mostly stemming from misunderstanding the NAP. Yet, I’m sure fear of embracing the far-reaching implications inherent in the NAP will prevent people from embracing such a foundational idea.

Ultimately, if you don’t believe in the NAP, you have to believe that aggression is justified under certain circumstances, and the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to exonerate such coercion.