Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)

now called by many Zero-Aggression Principle (ZAP)

The shorter version:

"No human being has the right—under any circumstances—to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

—Bill Stone

Of the power version:

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

—L. Neil Smith

This is an absolute requirement for cooperative living. Cooperative living is in turn the base for all trade. In order to cooperate or trade one must be able to come to agreement. An agreement done under the expectation of force or the threat of force is no agreement. Without the cooperative living represented by today's extensive specialization and trade, it is estimated that 99% of the current population would die of starvation, i.e., by going back to and living under the agricultural conditions that existed before the development of modern trade.

That's one side of the coin. The other is the target of the initiated force. Since the target person is responding rather than initiating, that force then used in personal defense is *not* destructive of cooperative living and thus presents no threat to civilized conduct. There is however, the moral concern of proportional response. The young lady slapping your face does not warrant breaking her sweet little neck, nor is it a call for Glocks at sunrise.

The follow-up, i.e. after direct defense, on an act of aggression remains disputed. Some hold that the whole train of court procedure, court investigation, court compelled attendence, and final court adjudication and forced collection of damages is all entailed and justified by the original act of aggression. The other side asserts that the whole process is fraught with the threat of error. The unsurity disallows any new initiation of force, or so-called continued defensive force, against the accused and, with no guarantee of an accurate verdict, even against the convicted. The only recourse remains the non-violent personal and public boycott.

That's it in a nutshell. For further reading:

Links for NAP

Problems with NAP

NonAggressionPrincipleTalk