Principle of non-aggression - Revision history

207.216.14.175 at 07:54, 22 January 2014

2014-01-22T07:54:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:54, 22 January 2014
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==Consequences==		==Consequences==
	If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]], [[pollution]] and [[victimless crimes]].		If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]], [[pollution]] and the concept of [[victimless crimes]].

	When applied to the [[state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.		When applied to the [[state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.

86.87.184.55: /* Justification */

2014-01-21T16:08:15Z

Justification

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:08, 21 January 2014
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>		* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>
	* [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)\|Objectivism]]. [[Ayn Rand]] has made efforts in deriving the principle from the [[right to life]]; and		* [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)\|Objectivism]]. [[Ayn Rand]] has made efforts in deriving the principle from the [[right to life]]; and
	* [[Universally Preferable Behavior]]. [[Stefan Molyneux]] formulated an ethical theory that made ~~a successful~~ effort to validate the non-aggression principle.		* [[Universally Preferable Behavior]]. [[Stefan Molyneux]] formulated an ethical theory that made an effort to validate the non-aggression principle.

	==Historical formulations and background==		==Historical formulations and background==

77.70.95.50: /* Consequences */

2013-12-20T09:48:07Z

Consequences

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 20 December 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==Consequences==		==Consequences==
	If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]] and [[victimless crimes]].		If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]], [[pollution]] and [[victimless crimes]].

	When applied to the [[state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.		When applied to the [[state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.

24.17.10.124: /* Historical formulations and background */

2013-06-16T13:02:20Z

Historical formulations and background

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:02, 16 June 2013
Line 80:		Line 80:
	\|		\|
	\|[[L. Neil Smith]]		\|[[L. Neil Smith]]
	\|The libertarian science fiction writer, claims, "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation." This is considered an imprecise formulation, since it explicitly ignores context.		\|The libertarian science fiction writer claims, "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation." This is considered an imprecise formulation, since it explicitly ignores context.
	\|-		\|-
	\|		\|

99.71.150.194: /* Historical formulations and background */

2013-04-01T23:57:00Z

Historical formulations and background

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 1 April 2013
Line 42:		Line 42:
	\|In [[Hayy ibn Yaqzan]] the Islamic philosopher discussed the life story of a baby living alone without prior knowledge who discovered natural law, and natural rights, which obliged man not to coerce against another's life or property. Ibn Tufayl influenced Locke's notion of [[Tabula Rasa]].<ref>G. A. Russell (1994), ''The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England'', pp. 224-239, [[Brill Publishers]], ISBN 9004094598.</ref>		\|In [[Hayy ibn Yaqzan]] the Islamic philosopher discussed the life story of a baby living alone without prior knowledge who discovered natural law, and natural rights, which obliged man not to coerce against another's life or property. Ibn Tufayl influenced Locke's notion of [[Tabula Rasa]].<ref>G. A. Russell (1994), ''The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England'', pp. 224-239, [[Brill Publishers]], ISBN 9004094598.</ref>
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~1618~~		\|1689
	\|[[John Locke]]		\|[[John Locke]]
	\|In [[Second Treatise on Government]] he wrote "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."<ref>http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html#Sect.%206.</ref>		\|In [[Second Treatise on Government]] he wrote "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."<ref>http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html#Sect.%206.</ref>

Pestergaines: +link

2013-01-01T14:11:20Z

+link

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 1 January 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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 [[Violence\|violent]] self-defense. The principle is a [[deontological]] (or rule-based) ethical stance.		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 [[Violence\|violent]] [[self-defense]]. The principle is a [[deontological]] (or rule-based) ethical stance.

	==Origin==		==Origin==

Pestergaines: /* Consequences */ Fixed link.

2012-08-06T13:29:47Z

Consequences: Fixed link.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 6 August 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:
	If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]] and [[victimless crimes]].		If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]] and [[victimless crimes]].

	When applied to the [[~~state (polity)\|~~state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.		When applied to the [[state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.

	The [[United States Libertarian Party]] and others view it as an essential tenet of all [[libertarianism\|libertarian]] thought.		The [[United States Libertarian Party]] and others view it as an essential tenet of all [[libertarianism\|libertarian]] thought.

Pestergaines: +link; -unused templates and links

2012-08-06T13:28:23Z

+link; -unused templates and links

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Refimprove|date=May 2008}}
+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 [[Violence|violent]] self-defense. The principle is a [[deontological]] (or rule-based) ethical stance.
 ==Origin==
@@ Line 159: / Line 156: @@
 * [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_5.pdf New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory] by [[N. Stephan Kinsella]], Mises.org
 *[http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html The Philosophy of Liberty], an animated production, derives a [[libertarianism|libertarian]] philosophy from the principle of self-ownership.  Central to this is the non-aggression principle.
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Non-Aggression Principle}}
@@ Line 167: / Line 161: @@
 [[Category:Anarchist theory]]
 [[Category:Anarcho-capitalism]]

173.245.53.188: /* Justification */ For years no one could successfully disprove Universally Preferable Behaviour.

2012-03-08T21:46:23Z

Justification: For years no one could successfully disprove Universally Preferable Behaviour.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 8 March 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>		* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>
	* [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)\|Objectivism]]. [[Ayn Rand]] has made efforts in deriving the principle from the [[right to life]]; and		* [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)\|Objectivism]]. [[Ayn Rand]] has made efforts in deriving the principle from the [[right to life]]; and
	* [[Universally Preferable Behavior]]. [[Stefan Molyneux]] formulated an ethical theory that made an effort to validate the non-aggression principle.		* [[Universally Preferable Behavior]]. [[Stefan Molyneux]] formulated an ethical theory that made a successful effort to validate the non-aggression principle.

	==Historical formulations and background==		==Historical formulations and background==

141.101.70.180: /* Justification */

2012-01-17T00:08:19Z

Justification

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:08, 17 January 2012
Line 19:		Line 19:
	==Justification==		==Justification==
	The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including:		The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including:
	* [[Argumentation Ethics]]. [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] has argued that [[property rights]] are [[praxeology\|praxeologically]] necessary as they are presupposed in the very act of argumentation;		* [[Argumentation ethics\|Argumentation Ethics]]. [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] has argued that [[property rights]] are [[praxeology\|praxeologically]] necessary as they are presupposed in the very act of argumentation;
	* [[Natural law]]. [[Murray Rothbard]] has made efforts to derive non-aggression from [[self-ownership]];		* [[Natural law]]. [[Murray Rothbard]] has made efforts to derive non-aggression from [[self-ownership]];
	* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>		* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>