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.
![](http://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" height="1"> <input type="hidden" name="encrypted" value="-----BEGIN PKCS7-----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-----END PKCS7----- "> </form>)
Kiwi Polemicist 
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] Non-aggression axiom […]
Pingback by • Ted Nugent on self defence and gun control « Kiwi Polemicist — July 28, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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
[…] 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