Non-Aggression Principle
The core principle of libertarianism that coercion against others' bodies and property is unjust.
What is the Non-Aggression Principle?
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is a core principle of libertarian ethics.
It is unjust to initiate the use of force against another person's body or justly acquired property.
The word "initiate" is key. Using force in self-defense is justified. What is unjust is the initiation of aggression.
The person who stated this most clearly as an axiom of libertarian ethics was Murray Rothbard. But its roots run far deeper, in John Locke's theory of natural rights and the classical-liberal tradition that no one may violate another's life, liberty, or property without consent. The NAP is less a new invention than a compression of an intuition most people already hold into a single consistent rule.
When Force Becomes Justified
The Non-Aggression Principle does not reject all force. Force is justified in two cases.
- Self-defense - the person under attack may use force to stop it.
- Restitution - once aggression has occurred, the victim may compel the aggressor to make the victim whole.
A condition of proportionality applies. Executing someone for stealing an apple is not a just response. The response must be proportional to the size of the aggression.
The Non-Aggression Principle in Everyday Life
Most people already follow this principle in their daily lives:
- We don't steal other people's belongings
- We don't hit others
- We don't trespass on other people's homes
- We don't commit fraud
The Non-Aggression Principle applies this common-sense moral rule equally to everyone - including government officials.
What Consistent Application Means
Libertarians ask a simple question: If an action is a crime when an individual does it, why does it become legitimate when the government does it?
| When an individual does it | When the government does it |
|---|---|
| Robbery | Taxation |
| Kidnapping | Conscription |
| Counterfeiting | Currency issuance (quantitative easing) |
| Forced monopoly | Regulation and licensing |
The Non-Aggression Principle questions this double standard. This is exactly what Bastiat called legal plunder - acts that wear the form of law but are, in essence, the initiation of aggression.
What the Non-Aggression Principle Does Not Say
This principle is often misunderstood. A few clarifications:
- It is not pacifism. Far from rejecting self-defense, the NAP justifies it.
- It is not a complete ethics. The principle addresses only the minimum standard of justice - when force is legitimate. Virtues like kindness, generosity, and charity are separate questions. Being rude is not aggression.
- It does not automatically resolve every edge case. The exact boundaries of property, the rights of children, and pollution all require additional theory.
- It is a principle about means, not outcomes. The core question is "who initiated force first."
Bitcoin and the Non-Aggression Principle
Bitcoin realizes the Non-Aggression Principle technologically:
- Forced seizure is impossible - without the private key, bitcoin cannot be taken. Censorship resistance guarantees this.
- Forced inflation is impossible - no one can change the 21 million limit to dilute a holder's wealth.
- No permission required - anyone can transact freely without anyone's approval.
In the fiat system, aggression happens invisibly, like the inflation tax. Bitcoin closes off the channel for that aggression in code itself.
Related Concepts
- What is Libertarianism? - the broader philosophical context of the NAP
- Self-Ownership - the logical foundation of the NAP
- Natural Rights - the source of the rights protected from aggression
- Private Property - what counts as "justly acquired property"
- Legal Plunder - aggression carried out in the name of law