Porcfest2015

Libertarians agree that the "Non-Aggression Principle", or NAP summarizes the essence of their philosophy. However, common statements of the NAP implicitly presuppose the notion of property rights, which makes them sound like a petition of principle to non-libertarians, or worse, like circular argument when property rights are in turn defined in terms of aggression. Furthermore, such naive statements of the NAP offers no guideline for action when the principle is violated. We'll propose instead a more fundamental principle, the Minimization of Aggression Principle, or MAP. The MAP has both narrower premises and wider conclusions, and breaks any circularity between the definitions of aggression and property rights. The MAP is therefore a much stronger argument to use to convince non-libertarians. Furthermore, the MAP does provide a guideline for action when aggression does happen. Some people might argue that the MAP is but a clarification of what the NAP actually means, even though most people who invoke the NAP may fail to properly articulate it.