In libertarianism.org, Dr. Zwolinski made an article which he believes that he dismantled the principle of non-aggression (and the value that most libertarians start with) through six arguments. His entire case runs on the fact of how the NAP is too simplified for the real world since it avoids itself of any real issue other than having basic premises of "is it voluntary".
I'll start with my definition and then to refute his claims one by one:
Non-aggression principle: A deontological claim that states that any coercion or involuntary force against any anyone is ethically illegitimate to make.
Aggression: Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
1_ The NAP on pollution
Dr. Zwolinski gets evidence from Murray Rothbard stumbling on pollution. For many, this is the part where the NAP breaks apart as it can't be able to justify the areas where negative externalities are existing. The reason why is that when a car emits gas, or a factory produces something, a person smoking, all of those things causes the pollution of the gas or other chemicals to be able to move somewhere else by the air and it could lead to air pollution or increasing temperatures that can hurt individuals. After all, it goes against the NAP to blow smoke in someone's face, doesn't it apply as well when an individual starts a fire?
The problem here doesn't lie on the NAP, but rather an issue of property, since that is what creates the principle of non-aggression. Individuals are their own property as well as the labor that they produce and have (lockean proviso). This is challenging at first because things such as air, light, and many parts of nature have indefinite resources which people do not claim as their own. This means that there ought to be guidelines on property that in order to fight off the aggression that individuals make.
We can separate this in micro levels. For starters, in your house you make the rule or not on the pollution (your friends can't trash the place, tenant's can't smoke..). In neighborhood settings, there can be Homeowner associations (HOA) which can put laws on smoke such as prohibition on smoking, having BBQ's as well as cooking outside. The point can be used in towns, cities and in multiple areas (and yes I still use the state as that is the best pragmatic result in having the principle of non-aggression, I don't look at a utopian figure) to be able to combat air pollution. This is not as a case after the pollution was made, but before it happens creating laws on when the pollution is an aggression and harmful, which goes against the NAP
States can be able to have NGO's to set up agreements which can be used such as the Paris accords in order to create international carbon credits in order to offset the amount of pollution that individuals make. The tax is justifiable in order to offset the tragedy of commons that individuals are doing when they emit gas. When companies buy the carbon credits, they pay for the right in order to emit gas that they are using, thus establishing a property that is justifiable in the principle of non-aggression. If the air would go somewhere else though, such as causing smogs, individuals can be able to sue as there is abundance of evidence of where the pollution is coming from and why.
David Friedman's case that if I say it's an act of aggression, ergo it's aggression is just a slippery slope to undermine the concept of aggression. A person that would go to court can't just say "I got attacked by a photon" or "I heard him speak which caused me to hear noise that I didn't permit"and I go to jail, but explain how did that extremely small case cause for why was that harm to begin with. Saying that I didn't accept the photon or noise isn't a good argument as I would argue it's not about accepting the incoming things, but if those things were in any way harmful and where they in any act as part of an aggression. Because people can be able to not have any of their property or them self affected by what happened and therefore no harm. It also applies when there is harm but not from the individual but based on what the property responded from (an example is that a couple breaks up and one of them is heartbroken), this shows that there was harm but not involuntary aggression (the person who broke that individuals heart was affected but not aggressed, even if the person who broke up with him did it to spite him. It would be however different if that person punched him in the heart, and then causes heart trouble as it is an act of aggression the perpetrator did)
The NAP doesn't say that all pollution is an aggression. The purpose of the NAP is to enforce the property rights, and in a world where pollution is blurry, this is the best case to uphold the NAP as it establishes property rights of the air; it is irrelevant whether or not the creating the pollution is beneficial (looking at you Coase theorem). The same thing can be applied to various forms of pollution such as oil spills, radiation, water, soil, even noise pollution.
2_ The NAP on saving the world
Dr. Zwolinski argues that we can't ever use a beneficial approach to the NAP, ever. I disagree. Let's look at this scenario. Imagine in another trolley case scenario where you are looking at a incoming train track about to kill one thousand people. As you watch in horror, you notice that there is a lever that if you pull it the train will go to another lane and therefore save the one thousand lives. The catch, however, is that the lever is owned by Steemit TM and none of the employees are there. What will you do; will you trespass that private property in order to save those lives, thus breaking the NAP? I hope you do!
Walter Block makes a similar case that it's ok to break the NAP as long as you can be able to pay for the repercussions of trespassing (in this case if Steamit TM wants to take you to court and have you pay a fine). I find this a great part of the NAP because it teaches us to be responsible for the moral and ethical parts that we are facing and that there are no cop-outs for "the utilitarian made me do it".
The same applies to his case on the very, very, small tax on billionaires to save those very poor case. Here the scenario changes as it goes from an individual breaking NAP to a group (in this case, the state). The remedy here is that the state taxes in the very rich as a state of exception, which I'm not supporting as the only legitimate tool, but rather the state will do it and the upper class can sue for robbery, which they can have their money back later on and the children are saved. If that is not justified, there can always be other solutions such as tax breaks, loans from the rich, make voluntary organizations to receive money to help the poor childrens (such as the Bill Gates foundation).
So the NAP doesn't just say that it's wrong, but as well as how to fix any wrong doing when we have a belief that extends beyond the NAP
3_ The NAP doesn't allow risks.
This is hardly a good claim to make as the point of speaking of aggression is to explain when the aggression is obvious and imminent. This case be pointed out from Rothbard’s "Ethics of Liberty" were in a court case there are two scenarios. In one case there was a person while walking down the street noticed a person wearing a ski mask was running towards him with a chainsaw. Scared the person shoots Jason to defend himself. This is justifiable as the court would see that the shooter was trying to save himself as he saw the aggression as both imminent and clear.
This would be different case where a person shot someone dead and their only argument was (that person was giving me the creeps when he was walking). One can argue that we may never know if the NAP was really violated, which I agree and would point out that the risk case can still be used as the courts can be able to decide what happen. Just like in current law, if the defendant was found to have calculated the risk analysis according to the court, then the person is found free, if not guilty. The risk factor will always be involved, which can be applied to cases such as airplanes (making sure the airplanes have the licenses to fly, proper safety equipment, it's up-to-date) and other vehicles. Dr. Zwolinski argues that we have to go for all risks or none under the NAP is absurd, as we can be able to establish what the term of what aggression is, and how can we be able to settle it when there are in cases.
===================================================================================
I'll be doing part two soon. If anyone has an issue or topic that you would like me to talk about that revolves around economics, politics or philosophy, please let me know.