I want to clarify and restate some things which I wrote previously using more of my own observations, reasoning, and intuition instead of anthropological and theological ideas which I am not qualified to discuss with certainty. I might recommend reading this before or instead of what I wrote earlier. The point I was trying to express is the simple pragmatic argument in favor of the non-aggression principle that, with all else being equal, it is better to not make enemies, and aggression creates enemies by definition. Additionally, if one is not far more powerful than his enemies, he should leave them a path of retreat or else they will fight with total desperation. I say the problem is not the non-aggression principle, but the question of who ought to be treated as the legitimate owner of which property, as I argued
A Pragmatic Case for the Non-Aggression Principle
A Pragmatic Case for the Non-Aggression…
A Pragmatic Case for the Non-Aggression Principle
I want to clarify and restate some things which I wrote previously using more of my own observations, reasoning, and intuition instead of anthropological and theological ideas which I am not qualified to discuss with certainty. I might recommend reading this before or instead of what I wrote earlier. The point I was trying to express is the simple pragmatic argument in favor of the non-aggression principle that, with all else being equal, it is better to not make enemies, and aggression creates enemies by definition. Additionally, if one is not far more powerful than his enemies, he should leave them a path of retreat or else they will fight with total desperation. I say the problem is not the non-aggression principle, but the question of who ought to be treated as the legitimate owner of which property, as I argued