Kiwi Polemicist

• Non-aggression axiom

The non-aggression axiom is the fundamental principle of classical liberalism:

It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.

There are only two types of rights, and they are covered by this axiom: personal rights and property rights. Those two rights cover everything so, for example, there is no such thing as “human rights” or a “right to free speech” (they are in fact dangerous fallacies), and I have explained that in this post.

Every issue should be considered in light of this axiom, and every solution should comply with this axiom.

Click here for a biblical perspective on the non-aggression axiom. Click here to read another person’s perspective on the axiom.

11 Comments »

  1. [...] displaying a gang patch does not violate the non-aggression axiom and therefore should not be illegal. When the state prohibits the display of certain insignia and [...]

    Pingback by • Gang Insignia Bill takes a step forward, freedom takes a step back « Kiwi Polemicist — March 5, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

  2. [...] personal and property rights. Only when personal and property rights are defined according to the non-aggression axiom are we safe from the depredations of [...]

    Pingback by • ACT Party tramples on freedom to get three strikes law « Kiwi Polemicist — March 6, 2009 @ 8:34 am

  3. [...] even then the billboard would not violate the non-aggression axiom so classical liberalists would not object to it. Remember that simply advocating rape not [...]

    Pingback by • DB’s “offensive” porn billboard shows that the free market works « Kiwi Polemicist — March 13, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

  4. [...] believe that viewing child porn should be legal because it does not violate the non-aggression axiom, which says It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his [...]

    Pingback by Internet censorship has arrived in NZ « Kiwi Polemicist — July 17, 2009 @ 9:24 am

  5. [...] Non-aggression axiom [...]

    Pingback by • Ted Nugent on self defence and gun control « Kiwi Polemicist — July 28, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

  6. [...] Property rights are summed up by the non-aggression axiom, which says “It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his [...]

    Pingback by • Property rights are a part of human nature « Kiwi Polemicist — August 31, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

  7. [...] non-aggression axiom sums up the biblical position nicely: It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence [...]

    Pingback by Response to “What’s wrong with imposing your beliefs onto others?” « CCL: Christian Classical Liberalist — September 1, 2009 @ 10:36 am

  8. [...] a better way. Talking on a cellphone while driving doesn’t violate the non-aggression axiom, so make it legal. At the same time, bring in restorative justice so that those who damage person [...]

    Pingback by Cellphones aren’t allowed while driving, you naughty children « Kiwi Polemicist — November 7, 2009 @ 8:58 am

  9. [...] I would not classify what this woman did as wrongdoing because she did not breach the non-aggression axiom. I would classify what she did as stupid and inconsiderate of others in the extreme (I’m not [...]

    Pingback by No need to make cellphone use while driving illegal « Kiwi Polemicist — January 4, 2010 @ 7:35 am

  10. [...] My position is simple: that bar is private property and, as part of his property rights, the owner should be free to make a choice about who can and cannot enter his property. The route to a fair and just society is not a complicated one: just give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want, and punish them if they violate the personal and property rights of others. [...]

    Pingback by Imaginary human rights more important than real property rights « Kiwi Polemicist — January 13, 2010 @ 10:54 am

  11. [...] My position is simple: that bar is private property and, as part of his property rights, the owner should be free to make a choice about who can and cannot enter his property. The route to a fair and just society is not a complicated one: just give everyone the freedom to do whatever they want, and punish them if they violate the personal and property rights of others. [...]

    Pingback by Bar owner’s property rights wrecked by human rights « Kiwi Polemicist — January 13, 2010 @ 11:07 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Shocking Blue Green Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: