Critique:
"The problem with libertarianism is the non aggression principle. Without an objective authority to rule on what actions do & do not constitute aggression, folks would be left to make the determination themselves. This would mean a wide disparity & might ruling over right & whim ruling over reason"
My Response:
folks would be left to make the determination themselves.
As it stands now "folks" are left to make the determination themselves. You know who they are? Psychopathic individuals in "government."
NAP is easy, common sense, and logical. WAAAAAAYYYYY more so than the arbitrary psychopathic dictates of the state.
I NO HURT YOUR BODY YOUR THINGS, YOU NO HURT MY BODY MY THINGS
Property can be very clearly defined by the foundational tenet of all true libertarianism, individual self-ownership.
Gray areas and debates may come up, sure. They come up now around the nonsensical and violent laws of the state. Why not opt to deal with these "gray areas" in a philosophy not built on violence?
Look around. Do you see reason ruling over whim now? Of course not. The extant state was designed on whim, PURPOSEFULLY. Namely, the "divine right to rule."
*
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)