Is the Non-Aggression Principle Enough? A Libertarian Heresy

Go ahead, Jeremy. Go ahead. You're gonna give me this is like your topic. I know. I just I could talk for offering. I just I I disagreed for uh a simple reason. And this is one of my complaints about sort of the libertarian uh anti-war people who I like, like I don't like war. I would like there to be no wars. I don't understand how a nation can conduct can engage in a foreign conflict and adhere strictly to the nap. It just it it just seems i impossible. You know, um, and I think we should come as I I I wouldn't I'm not saying throw it away. Like, we don't want to hurt civilians, we want to hurt to the if we're ever in a conflict, hurt the government agents, hurt the bad guys, hurt the other soldiers. Uh but again, ideally go right to the top, go to the people. Well do what Israel did and just give everybody a pager and blow them up.

Okay, all right, sure. We can drill right down to everyone loves talking about Israel. It's everyone's favorite subject. Can't get enough of it. I mean, Thomas Jefferson was like he the thing about Jefferson that was so is so fascinating as a libertarian is that all of his words and his writings are so libertarian, but then when he became president of the United States, he was waging war, he was killing pirates, he was raising a military, he was starving the East Coast with his embargoes. Israel violates the NAP all the time. They kill a huge amount of innocent guys. That's my understanding is that a large amount of Gazans die who were innocents, who did nothing against Israel. Yeah. And so uh I know I've seen kind of like I've seen people argue about ratios, and the ratios aren't so far off from other foreign conflicts, but it doesn't, you're still endorsing the fact that the people who are not in the world.

Are the civilians in Nazi Germany who manufacture the tiger tank? Are they innocent? But why okay? I'm gonna do that. I mean, if you work in a factory and you're building a bomb and you're a civilian and you're not in the military, are you a legitimate target? Yes, you are. You're a civilian, but you're building a bomb. Okay, well, you're not in the government, you're not in the military, but you're building a bomb. Why does that but they that Israel could uh take other actions that would kill fewer innocent people? They could send them. I think they could, and I think they do. I think Israel's probably the best at killing exactly who they want to kill. I think what the United States can probably learn a lot from Israel. I think that we are probably so we are we are. I think no, I I think I think they do.

I think they are very targeted. Uh and I think the United States is actually very targeted in the way that they approach it. I but I think the creation of the drone missile was like one of the more libertarian acts because it wouldn't it be isn't it better that we have targeted weapon systems rather than rushing to nuclear weapons. We use nuclear weapons twice, now we've never had to use them again. And and and if you want to talk about like like destruction, like are there legitimate targets in war? Yes, right? And if we and are Israel and United States trying to get after those targets themselves, yes. Are the bad guys putting themselves in between the civilian? If you never ever can attack someone because they place themselves amongst civilians in order to get you to do it, then you'll be killed.

You'll be destroyed. You know, you will die. You you cannot allow them to use civilians as shields, and then claim the moral high ground because when you're acting in self-defense, that you cut that a civilian caught astray. Well, you're not that I did say disagree, because I ultimately I do agree with what you said, then I just don't see how in a lot of these situations you could feasibly conduct a war and adhere to a definition of that. You can't. But also, okay, I want to be careful because this is a pattern that's maybe played out with a couple of our answers, is I think it's a mistake for libertarians to go, oh well, I can't I can't adhere to I can't adhere to the NAP strictly in a foreign conflict. So therefore it doesn't matter. Like we don't want to we don't endorse that conclusion.

That we still it would still be better, you know, and I and I and I think it does matter. I think there is more cavalierness about killing innocent people from both the United States military and the Israel military, then I think the last time that libertarians came up with a war theory was in the 1100s. Like just war theory. Without a proper actual defensible theory that can defend yourself against Hamas or Hezbollah or against any of these violent groups that wish to destroy you. I mean, because the the government is violating our NAP every day. We just paid our income taxes on April 15th. We had our NAP violated. How are we fighting back? Are we fighting back with bombs and and missiles? No, you can't, right? Because when you when you don't have the power or the ability to fight back, you fight back in the way that terrorists fight back, right?

Which is passive resistance, guerrilla warfare, etc. etc. The non-aggression principle, I think, is a dead letter because war is being waged against you all of the time. Your NAP is constantly being violated. Right? And what what constitutes a level of aggression that justifies the use of retaliatory violent force? The black guy. I understands. He's probably seen violence. Hey, have you ever been punched in the face? Raise your hand if you've ever been punched in the face. Raise your hand if you've never been punched in the face. Oh, we found a new split. You found a new split question. I'll tell you, if you have never been punched in the face, you do not understand violence. You don't understand violence if you've never had a violent altercation, if you've never had a correction. The first time I ever got punched in the face was a really good wake-up call because I realized, wow, maybe next time I should strike first.

Alright, we're gonna do Fight Club in the parking lot. Okay. We don't need to do a poll here, but I would guess that the majority of people who hold to the nap in foreign policy have never been punched in the face. They don't understand violence. Alright, we're gonna keep it, we're gonna we're gonna keep it moving. This is my favorite one. This is the this is the most divisive one.