Has my libertarian card been revoked? Has it?

[Sentient Void]

I think this is one of a few very *particularly* important subjects for self-proclaimed 'libertarians' to really think seriously about. I haven't posted a new article in some months (my last one was on abortion, I don't recall if I shared that with anyone on the forums or not, but it got ~3000 views on its own), nor have I even really posted on the forum or debated issues here on good ole RPF in a long, long time. I used to be extremely active and some regulars might recognize me.

Anyways, I still like to post my articles through the RPF medium. I could pick-up and move elsewhere, but I like the exposure you guys give and the intellectual rigor you can find here as opposed to other places. I've also been caught up debating a lot on facebook groups and Google Groups.

So yeah, check out the new article, comment on it, like it, share it, critique it, call it out as shit if you have any intellectually honest problems with it, etc

/snip

But, before (fellow) libertarians decide to 'revoke my libertarian card' after reading my critique - know that I am a firm advocate of the NAP. Basically, I think the best justice system will be built around the NAP and that a society that follows the NAP most consistently will be the most 'just', as well as the most prosperous and happy.

That being said, far too many 'libertarians' et al say that the NAP is never to be violated, no matter what. They believe in a rigid adherence to the NAP - that it is some absolutist doctrine. I think this is a serious mistake and a failing of philosophy.

Another caveat. Understand that while I provide an example to illustrate my point, the example itself is irrelevant. The point, is the logic. If our philosophy relies on consistent theories and tests based purely on a priori reasoning, we must be willing and able to take it to its logically implied extremes for rigorous testing. Bad ideas, taken to their logical conclusions, produce extremely bad results. That's how you detect bad ideas. Good ideas are just the opposite, and are tested in the same way. Moderation is only good for stopping us from taking bad ideas too far. Also, we cannot remain intellectually honest and claim a priorism is the most important path to truth and knowledge, yet only cherry pick when we want to use it and when we don't.

So here we are...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?761-has-my-libertarian-card-been-revoked-has-it

 

[Occam's Banana]

I didn't vote in the poll because I pretty much already agree with everything you said - though I would phrase & frame things somewhat differently. My main quibble is that I would NOT say that the NAP itself is flawed - rather, all too often, the way it is employed is flawed.

The NAP may be primarily a prioristic in its (theoretical) derivation, but it should (and must) be primarily a posterioristic in its (practical) application.

The "posterior" application of the NAP is of vastly overwhelming importance and significance, because there will always be two broad groups of people. First, there will be people who reject the NAP altogether & outright (for whatever reason - because they disagree with it philosophically, or because they are sociopaths, or etc.). Second, there will be people who accept the NAP but violate it anyway (again, for whatever reason - because they succumb to temptation, or because they find themselves in a "lifeboat" situation in which no outcome satisfies both our sympathies and the NAP, or etc.).

The "anterior" use of the NAP as a "rule of thumb" (or as you call it, a "maxim") for guiding & informing our actions before we act - especially in our routine, day-to-day lives - is invaluable. But I contend that that is NOT the NAP's actual, correct or true purpose. The actual, correct and true purpose of the NAP is to tell us whether what we have done is jurisprudentially actionable after we have done it.

As I said in a previous response to you on this subject in another thread:

[lots of good sense snipped for space]

I agree completely. In place of your pharmacy example, I've always used this scenario: imagine you're lost & freezing in a blizzard and you stumble across a cabin (or some other kind of shelter). The owner, who is present, is an elderly person who is unduly afraid of you & refuses to assist. What do you do? Do you say, "Oh, well! The NAP forbids me to forcibly tresspass, so I'll just wander off & die" ... ?

NAP is an a posteriori (or "post-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (previously committed) action is a suitable candidate for jurisprudential consideration.

NAP is NOT an a priori (or "pre-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (as yet uncommitted) action must *never* be committed. (Though it can often serve as a general guide or rule-of-thumb in this regard - especially under mundane circumstances or in situations that are not "edge cases.")

Also important to remember is the fact that NAP doesn't tell us anything about *what* we ought (or ought not) to do in response to NAP violations. Other valid principles of justice (such as that of restitution) are required for that purpose.

And my reply to a follow-up question in the same thread:

I'm wondering how your story ends. in my version, trespasser is shot by frightened, elderly property owner. how does your version end?

My version doesn't have an ending ... it's a cliffhanger!

Seriously, though, I leave the story unfinished in order to suggest numerous possible outcomes. There's the "I'll go way and die" outcome, or the "I kill the resident to save myself" outcome, or the "I tresspass by sneaking into the barn" outcome, or... (and so forth).

The point is that, for one reason or another, *none* of the possible outcomes (given the situation) are entirely satisfactory. This indicates that the NAP, as critically important as it is, is not the "end-all-be-all" that many make it out to be. This isn't due to any flaw or inadequacy in the NAP - it's due to attempts to force the NAP to give us neat, tidy answers where no such answers are possible (under *any* principle of justice).

 

[Christian Liberty]

I pretty much agree with you.

Here's the bottom line, though. If you break into the Pharmacy, you have to be willing to accept the consequences of doing that. You'll have to pay for the value of what you stole, plus the property damage, etc. presuming the owner wants to press charges. If the owner isn't a sociopath, I'm sure he'd understand why you did what you did, although he might still press charges to recover that which he has lost.

Sometimes I'll agree that you have really no choice but to break the NAP. To do so might be moral. It just isn't legitimate.

 

[Bryan]

IMO, the underlying principle is that we must all take responsibility for our own actions, and if you end up in a situation where you think violating the NAP is the best thing then that is only something that you can decide.

To help build a positive society from such situations, we can turn to pro-community principles from a religious origin "forgive us our trespasses,: as we forgive those who trespass against us". In short, we are humans, we will make mistakes, we will "trespasses" against others, and we should be mindful of circumstances before casting judgement. I would further argue that in the most angelic of communities, in the example here, the pharmacy would never be locked, with an open door policy for those in need, and the owner would never be victimized. So with that society there would have never been a violation of the NAP in the first place. Of course, most places are far away from that, but why wouldn't we want that?

I'll disagree with the need to call it a maxim, I think principle works fine, since I don't see a "principle" as demanding rigid adherence, such as a "law". So I wouldn't call it the NAL (non-aggression law).

There are many other situation where the non-aggression principle can put people in gray areas. For example, does the NAP apply to animals? Does it mean you should be a vegetarian? That's not an easy life-style change to make, but going vegetarian is done by some people in pursuit of a more rigorous NAP (myself included). How about mosquitoes, spiders and other creatures? Does it matter if they have agressed on you, such as a mosquitoes biting you? Does it matter if they are in your house, thus "trespassing" even if they don't understand your rule-set? Just some thought questions to show more complexity of rigid adherence.

Anyway, great write-up- and no, you haven't been forgotten.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I've thought about this a few times while debating libertarians here on specific issues. I would say the most recent series of debate relevant to the NAP woud be watching farmers and every day people abroad destroy and tear up crops as well as boycott globally because they were thought to be dangerous to the natural state of humanity. As well, we see that they have the potential to reconfigure the natural genetics of man to a state of intellectual property along with the political leverage to force it upon them without having to even tell them it's being done to them. Does man own his body? Of course he does. But at the same time, politically, we see libertarians propping up these multi-national corporations and their theoretical gift of constitution and intellectual property. I find libertarianism to be very dangerous and a burden on humanity in some instances. This is one area. As it is, in many cases, libertarianism essentially serves as a stalking horse for the property rights and will of the corporation (multi-national in many instances) and, in effect, the violation of mans physical and legal means to reserve ownership of his own body if the growth of that company is more valuable to survival of the natural species. In a decade or so, I fear that our children or even their grandchildren will be paying these companies royalties just to justify their very existence because of some genetic patent that they never even were allowed to know they were ingesting...basically relegating them to intellectual property of some multi-national.

Very good paper, btw. I'm actually at a point in my life where I'm re-evaluationg myself and my position. I'm finding that I disagree with libertarians more than I agree with them on the most important and relevant issues that affect humanity.

 

[osan]

I think this is one of a few very *particularly* important subjects for self-proclaimed 'libertarians' to really think seriously about. I haven't posted a new article in some months (my last one was on abortion, I don't recall if I shared that with anyone on the forums or not, but it got ~3000 views on its own), nor have I even really posted on the forum or debated issues here on good ole RPF in a long, long time. I used to be extremely active and some regulars might recognize me.

Anyways, I still like to post my articles through the RPF medium. I could pick-up and move elsewhere, but I like the exposure you guys give and the intellectual rigor you can find here as opposed to other places. I've also been caught up debating a lot on facebook groups and Google Groups.

So yeah, check out the new article, comment on it, like it, share it, critique it, call it out as shit if you have any intellectually honest problems with it, etc

/snip



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?761-has-my-libertarian-card-been-revoked-has-it

You failed to address the question fully. With reference to your sick daughter example, if you broke into the pharmacy and the pharmacist happened to be sleeping inside, he would be well within his rights to shoot the life from your carcass in defense of his property.

The broader story here illustrates several realities. Firstly, interests conflict. Your's to save your child's life and the pharmacist's to save his property from violation. Apparently this cannot be avoided by any guaranteed means.

Secondly, that the limitations of our ability to know what is really going on in a given situation, coupled with our right to defend our property (life, limb, etc.) places each of us in a fundamentally and perpetually hazardous state of existence with respect to how we respond to the unknown. It is the nature of things and cannot, as yet, be avoided with any perfection. When faced with uncertain and potentially dangerous circumstances, we are in turn faced with the choice of acting based on one set of assumptions or another. In the case of the example, the pharmacist either plugs you or he generously affords you the benefit of doubt by giving you the opportunity to explain yourself. This is a matter of pure chance so far as the experience of the "burglar" is concerned, thereby perforce rendering his burglary very risky business.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we are each of us free to violate the NAP as we please, but in so choosing should understand the concomitant risks we assume when we do.

Beside the NAP stand other principles, equally valent. Of particular interest in the case of your example is that of equity. This can be a very tricky bit in particular cases, but I believe that when looked upon statistically we can generalize by saying when one violates the NAP against inanimate property and depending upon circumstance, the violator should be afforded the opportunity to make restitution and if he does, no crime should be said to have been committed on the understanding that such acts as were taken in violation of the NAP can only be excused under rare conditions and that breaking into a store for a bottle of liquor because you wanted to get drunk will not be remedied by paying for the liquor and incidental damages some time after the fact.

What this implies is that if one finds himself in circumstances where life and limb are at stake, violations against fungible property such as the drug to save the man's daughter, may be taken as non-criminal so long as all good restitution is made.

At the other extreme lies the case where irreplaceable property is violated and no monetary restitution is possible. A man, shot by a robber, breaks into your home and tears up the Van Gogh for which you paid $145 million at auction to use as a tourniquet to save his life. How do we handle that?

There are no pat answers at the boundaries. Such cases require the honest hearts of good and capable men. Without those, all the principles in the world are of no use to us.

My conclusion is that there is no problem with the NAP itself. The hazards lie in the fabric of the human creature by virtue of the first and second points cited above. We are imperfect creatures prone to misapprehension of reality. Because we are unable to positively assess the intentions of another with 100% precision, every interaction involves a statistical gamble. The vast and overwhelming majority of those interactions involve confidences well beyond six-sigma. I'm not terribly worried about my wife murdering me as I sleep next to her... though there have been moments . But when some stranger is in your house at 2AM, the odds are shifted wildly in the opposite direction, the worst cases being those where you are largely uncertain of the other's purposes.

I have a friend who, when he was a kid in OH, lived in a place where nobody ever locked their doors. One evening a man came into their house and his father avoided shooting him dead by the split of a severally-split hair. Turned out to be a drunk neighbor who had mistaken Chuck's cookie cutter house for his own. Tragedy was narrowly avoided by the good, if by today's standards somewhat foolhardy, heart of a man who valued life enough to give someone who was at a momenent unknown to him the benefit of doubt. Our lives amongst each other can be this tenuous from one momenet to the next. But had Chuck's dad shot the neighbor, he would have been well within his rights.

One of my sister's fellow navy-wives, back in the very early 70s almost shot her husband who had come home several days early from sea, had arrived in the wee hours, and made no announcement so as not to awaken his spouse. It almost cost him his life as he was greeted at the bedroom door with a .45 in the hands of a terrified woman - the very gun he had given her for self defense during his long absences.

This is part of the nature of our existences. Because of our limitations, we may at times act in ways that follow principle correctly, yet the results of which turn out to be tragic by almost any standard. We have no choice but to live with this until such time as our abilities to know the hearts of others improves in quantum fashion.

The NAP is good as it stands. We are good as we stand. The hazards lay in the fabric of our very lives as the sorts of beings that we are. We either accept this and live accordingly or we reject is and likely live as fools. Choice is always ours.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This discussion reminds me of the attempts a decade ago of the LP platform committee to revise the entire platform into a uniform "the problem, the principle, the libertarian answer/solution, transition" format for every single issue based on the NAP/non-initiation of force doctrine. I objected to the wholesale reduction of every topic to this cookie-cutter notion, due to the oversimplification and truncation of all issues into tidy answers---exactly what the OP here is getting at as well.

The truth is, sometimes an issue contains more than one problem, and more than one principle is involved. The NAP/non-initiation doctrine is central, but is not a catch-all pivot that single handedly takes care of all liberty considerations. Perhaps the closest thing we could come to for that is the libertarian equivalent of the golden rule: if I was situationally in need of trespassing as per the example, how would I do it in the most humane manner available, that treats the neighbor as I would myself? If I was being trespassed upon, how would I want the trespasser to act or interact with me? Apologize and fully explain themself? Open their checkbook, and compensate me for damages on the spot? That kind of thing.

 

[Henry Rogue]

I've thought about this a few times while debating libertarians here on specific issues. I would say the most recent series of debate relevant to the NAP woud be watching farmers and every day people abroad destroy and tear up crops as well as boycott globally because they were thought to be dangerous to the natural state of humanity. As well, we see that they have the potential to reconfigure the natural genetics of man to a state of intellectual property along with the political leverage to force it upon them without having to even tell them it's being done to them. Does man own his body? Of course he does. But at the same time, politically, we see libertarians propping up these multi-national corporations and their theoretical gift of constitution and intellectual property. I find libertarianism to be very dangerous and a burden on humanity in some instances. This is one area. As it is, in many cases, libertarianism essentially serves as a stalking horse for the property rights and will of the corporation (multi-national in many instances) and, in effect, the violation of mans physical and legal means to reserve ownership of his own body if the growth of that company is more valuable to survival of the natural species. In a decade or so, I fear that our children or even their grandchildren will be paying these companies royalties just to justify their very existence because of some genetic patent that they never even were allowed to know they were ingesting...basically relegating them to intellectual property of some multi-national.

Very good paper, btw. I'm actually at a point in my life where I'm re-evaluationg myself and my position. I'm finding that I disagree with libertarians more than I agree with them on the most important and relevant issues that affect humanity.

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion about libertarians, when many libertarians reject the notion of intellectual property from the beginning. Seems to me your disagreement is with strict constitutionalists.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion about libertarians, when many libertarians reject the notion of intellectual property from the beginning. Seems to me your disagreement is with strict constitutionalists.

You may be right, Henry. The problem that I see is that many libertarians (politically active), to me, simply aren't truly libertarian. It's observable if we pay attention to the double speak. So, I think I'm probably making that asseessment assuming that many are libertarian in name only and in a way that serves the government that we claim is counter productive. I've often thought that libertarianism serves as the stalking horse for fascism but these aren't true libertarians to me. These are a group who seem to be content with a merge of corporation and state government model of sorts.

Sometimes we like to make out like we're on the bus and just blend in. I see it all of the time. Look that up. btw, Henry. Stalking Horse. Maybe you'll better understand what I mean.

But, yes. Assuming that my perception of what I'm observing is not correct then perhaps it is the strict constitutionalists. I don't know. I don't want to come off as self rightous either because I'm not. I'm not perfect or have all of the answers but I certainly don't see the value in defending that which I claim to oppose either.

 

[TheNung]

I really don't think your "sick daughter" scenario in any way designates a flaw in the NAP.

You decide its' in your or your daughter's best interests (mistaken or not) for you to break into the pharmacy to get the medicine, consequently invading the store-owner's property. However, he/she is a store-owner who's barely able make enough money to keep his employees working at full time and pay for a kidney transplant for his mother. Is it still so justified?

Since the core of your argument is emotional, just add a sob story to the property owner's side and it becomes less convincing. I'm all for testing our systems with extremist hypotheticals, but you structured your argument in a way to make the store-owner seem like a cold, static, non-human figure without problems or desperate needs of his/her own.

Stealing is stealing. Now, if a property owner is led to understand the plight of the thief, such as a sick daughter or near-starvation, he/she might choose to go easy on the thief or even just let them go, but that's up to the person whose property was invaded.

EDIT: I also think it's worth it to point out that if this is happening in one of our "libertarian worlds" (as opposed to our present one), then the very nature of a private, libertarian court system which would necessarily focus firstly on restitution to the victim and secondly the punishment of the aggressor would likely make the outcome of such a scenario very agreeable to both the thief and the shopkeeper. The thief isn't excused from responsibility, but is made to pay for the medication just the same as he would have had the shop been open rather than closed at the time. The thief would also be made to pay for anything he damaged during his break-in, and any justifiable wages lost. Considering the damages have been paid for and the extreme circumstances that led to the theft, I don't think anyone would find it too unlikely or unreasonable that the shopkeeper would consider foregoing the punishment part. Not that some people aren't exceptionally callous.

 

[Bryan]

You failed to address the question fully. With reference to your sick daughter example, if you broke into the pharmacy and the pharmacist happened to be sleeping inside, he would be well within his rights to shoot the life from your carcass in defense of his property.

I considered this as well, but most likely I would think it would end up a non-issues, and having someone inside would improve the situation since when you got there you'd have driven up in the parking lot in a loud manner, likely hope someone was inside and be yelling for help, "my daughter needs..." as you were breaking in, which would likely get the attention of anyone inside, and given the nature of a pharmacy, the person would immediately understand there was a medical emergency, see you're not trying to hide your identity, see your panic and then swing into action to help. Of course there is always a chance you could get shot, and it would be hard to find that person guilty of a crime....

So the real mistake is to do a better job of maintaining life sustaining medications, not keeping a back-up supply, etc. That's a safety principle that was violated.

 

[Henry Rogue]

You may be right, Henry. The problem that I see is that many libertarians (politically active), to me, simply aren't truly libertarian. It's observable if we pay attention to the double speak. So, I think I'm probably making that asseessment assuming that many are libertarian in name only and in a way that serves the government that we claim is counter productive. I've often thought that libertarianism serves as the stalking horse for fascism but these aren't true libertarians to me. These are a group who seem to be content with a merge of corporation and state government model of sorts.

Sometimes we like to make out like we're on the bus and just blend in. I see it all of the time. Look that up. btw, Henry. Stalking Horse. Maybe you'll better understand what I mean.

But, yes. Assuming that my perception of what I'm observing is not correct then perhaps it is the strict constitutionalists. I don't know. I don't want to come off as self rightous either because I'm not. I'm not perfect or have all of the answers but I certainly don't see the value in defending that which I claim to oppose either.

A**is a figure that tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare its interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association with the failed concept and can either drop the idea completely or bide its time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.

I'm pessimistic enough the way it is. Now I must contend with being someones intellectual guinea pig? What principles guide the state? Democracy? Rule of Law? The perception of democracy is that the majority is somehow just or that it will make the right decisions for humanity. Neither seem to be the case as far as I can tell. Rule of Law is a notion that people can be governed by just Laws. Of course fallible people create these laws and usually through the process of democracy. Is Rule of Law just? Not when the laws don't apply to all people or apply equally. In my thought process, directed laws create chaos in society. The very thing, proponents of the state, fear from anarchy. I may go so far as to say Discriminating laws are anarchy, if anarchy is defined as random chaos and injustice.

Even if laws are perceived as to apply to all people equally, that doesn't mean these laws are just. It's easy to view a law that prohibits and punishes the act of murder as applying to all equally, but a law that prohibits and punishes the act of making a profit may be viewed as applying to all persons and equally, by some people and seen as very unjust by other people. Democracy and Rule of Law doesn't prevent crazy synarios any more than NAP does. Aggression maybe as natural a state of Man as peaceful and voluntary exchange is. They both mimic Natural Selection in their own way. Natural Selection produced cooperating Wolf packs with a social hierarchy. I see this as mankind's natural instinct to control others. I doubt any scientists would claim Natural Selection to be guided by a cental planner. In this way Natural Selection is like a Free Market, the best results are obtained by not interfering with the natural course. The more Free humanity is from control the better it functions as a whole.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Stealing is stealing.

No one has suggested otherwise. Nor has anyone suggested that breaking into a pharmacy (under any circumstances) is not or should not be legally actionable - or that the breaker-in is not subject to consequences for doing so.

What has been suggested is that expecting a father to allow his daughter to die - because breaking into a pharmacy would be a violation of the NAP - is simply NOT a reasonable, rational or sensible way to expect or demand people to behave.

This is why I say that the proper use of the NAP is NOT to apply it before people have acted (in order to preemptively decree that they should never, ever do a thing under any circumstances merely because it would violate the NAP).

Rather, the proper use of the NAP is to apply it after people have acted (in order to determine whether they can or should be subject to any consequences for their actions).

 

[osan]

I considered this as well, but most likely I would think it would end up a non-issues, and having someone inside would improve the situation since when you got there you'd have driven up in the parking lot in a loud manner, likely hope someone was inside and be yelling for help, "my daughter needs..." as you were breaking in, which would likely get the attention of anyone inside, and given the nature of a pharmacy, the person would immediately understand there was a medical emergency, see you're not trying to hide your identity, see your panic and then swing into action to help. Of course there is always a chance you could get shot, and it would be hard to find that person guilty of a crime....

So the real mistake is to do a better job of maintaining life sustaining medications, not keeping a back-up supply, etc. That's a safety principle that was violated.

Your points ae well taken, but let us be clear that we were speaking not so much in positive terms as hypothetical in the effort to explore the metes and bounds of the ideas in question.

In the real world, I agree that the man in question would not be sneaking in like a burglar. At least, I would not be.

 

[Ronin Truth]

In my opinion if you are square with the NAP your card is still good.

The Sacred Nonaggression Principle (pdf)

Aggression is Wrong, by Robert LeFevre

 

[idiom]

NAP is more properly expanded to Non-aggression Against Property. The definitions of aggression and property are extremely narrow. They lead to a lot of outcomes that surprise people who have pre-conceptions of what non-aggression entails.

It seems like an intuitive and obvious set of ideas, but it really isn't. Thus its okay as a guideline, but it can get really screwy if followed strictly.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Let's say it was 3:00 AM and you had to drive your daughter home (from wherever, for whatever reason). Suddenly, you realize that you (the imperfect human that you are) made a mistake and forgot her medicine (whatever it is), or that she ran out, or it was lost, or some other situation. She gets horribly sick and is potentially near death within five or ten minutes, unless you get medicine very quickly. You just drove by a closed pharmacy. What do you do?

Do you say to yourself and to your dying daughter, 'No, I won't break into that pharmacy and violate the NAP in order to save my daughters life', or do you say, 'Fuck the consequences, I'm saving my daughter's life and violating the shit out of the NAP to get some medicine for her'?

I believe the pharmacist is a rational human being who values the life of a human - and a customer! - over a pane of glass or easily replaced door jam. Therefore, breaking in I'm not intentionally violating the NAP even though I realize it could put my life in danger. Just as it was in danger when driving too fast to get to the pharmacy and narrowly hitting pedestrians (and breaking the NAP!!!!).

Likely, I'm doing the pharmacist's will. And if I didn't think the pharmacist was the type to agree, then I'd be all like "fuck him!". Even in that scenario, so long as I'm willing to risk death and replace the stuff taken/broken and compensate for the inconvenience, then it really isn't a big issue. Unless the sheriff's daughter needed that exact same vial of medicine at 9am when the store opens. One vial of medicine, two sick daughters from different families. Now that could get interesting.

Remember the illiberal arguments to violate the NAP are based on you being too poor, too stupid, and a victim. In addition to all your shortcomings, they don't want you to degrade yourself to ask for help. The illiberal are more than happy to the degrading themselves.

There might be better edge cases. For example, you really are poor but the patent on the medicine and the mandatory insurance system (both violate NAP first as practiced) crowd out substitute or competing goods or generics.

 

[axiomata]

delete

 

[axiomata]

The NAP should be thought of like Rule Utilitarianism. It is the proper way to order a society but when it comes down to it, we will all be Act Utilitarians and live with the consequences.

I don't expect anybody to be coming for Sheldon Richman's libertarian card any time soon either when he talks about non-aggressive moral abuses.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tgif-rights-violations-arent-the-only-bads/

What I’m arguing for is a commonsense category of noninvasive moral offenses, wrongful acts that do not involve force. Since force plays no part, the remedies must not entail force (state-backed or otherwise) either. But forced-backed remedies are not the only — or even the best — remedies available. Nonviolent responses, including boycotts, shunning, and gossip (PDF), can be highly effective.
Libertarians ought to beware of embracing such a narrow view of morality that only forceful invasions of persons and property are deserving of moral outrage and response. Think of all the cruel ways people can treat others without lifting a hand. Are we to remain silent in the face of such abuse?
The erroneous belief that only conduct for which a coercive response is appropriate — that is, rights violations — may be condemned leads too easily to the corollary error that if some conduct is deserving of condemnation, it must somehow be a rights violation. The initiation of force is not the only bad thing in the world.

 

[TheGrinch]

I pretty much agree with you.

Here's the bottom line, though. If you break into the Pharmacy, you have to be willing to accept the consequences of doing that. You'll have to pay for the value of what you stole, plus the property damage, etc. presuming the owner wants to press charges. If the owner isn't a sociopath, I'm sure he'd understand why you did what you did, although he might still press charges to recover that which he has lost.

Sometimes I'll agree that you have really no choice but to break the NAP. To do so might be moral. It just isn't legitimate.

Exactly. There is not a contradiction here. It's the classic, "is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?" which is meant to show that morality is not absolute and can be situational.

But you're not contradicting the principle, there are still consequences for breaking it. Especially in a survival or life-or-death situation, sometimes people have to do things that go against their personal beliefs. That doesn't make their personal beliefs any less right or valid, it just means that situations might dictate what is the best course of action. You can find exceptions to any rule, but that has very little to do with whether they are valid in the vast majority of circumstances.

Hell, it doesn't even mean the exception is right or wrong to break it, it just means that the world isn't always black and white. Sometimes you have to weigh consequences with benefits and morality to come up with what you think is right in that instance.