Overturning the NAP Fallacy By Explicitly Stating NAP/IVP and NAP/PT

[N]AP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so.

Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation.

Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation.

NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation.

NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope.

The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution.

Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society).

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

Leave a Reply