Why Are Some Libertarians Rejecting the Nonaggression Principle?

I’d definitely prefer a legal system run by libertarians.

Listen to Tom Woods’ interview with Stephan Kinsella on the non-aggression principle here.

The comments thread that follows the interview also contains an interesting discussion of the way that libertarianism has split off into alt right/neo-reactionary/paleoconservative and social justice warrior factions. In other words, libertarianism has become just another strand within conservatism and/or liberalism. The real divisions in U.S. society today are not between statists and anti-statists or free-marketers and social democrats, but between the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe, with both tribes having libertarians and quasi-libertarians in their camp.

It’s become fashionable in libertarian circles to ridicule the nonaggression principle. Stephan Kinsella and I speak in its defense. This one is long overdue.

About the Guest

Stephan Kinsella is a registered patent attorney, lecturer, and author. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, Founding and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers, and blogger at The Libertarian Standard.

Column Discussed

Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle,” by Matt Zwolinski


1 reply »

  1. For the past few years I’ve read and thought a lot about how property-style libertarianism ‘works’, and I think it comes down to being a legal framework, rather than a moral or political theory – some of these might be compatible, or not, but it’s just an idea about the logic of jurisprudence, and part of the problem with all these republican-fake-libertarians and the like is that they are trying to turn a fairly simple set of common law principles into a fucking religion.

Leave a Reply