Lester argues that when conflicts arise in applying the non-aggression principle, we should choose whichever option minimizes aggression.
Aggression and property rights are, by themselves, not the only categories relevant to moral or juridical evaluation.
The non-aggression principle isn’t sufficient to help guide most of our political decisions, and so isn’t sufficient to be the core argument for libertarianism.
Arguments against libertarianism often take the form of false dilemmas. Powell looks at why they’re so common and what libertarians can do about it.
Sanchez argues that the non-aggression principle is ultimately circular, and shouldn’t be the basis for a libertarian theory of politics.
Kuznicki responds to Matt Zwolinski’s call for scrapping the non-aggression principle.
Zwolinski argues that some of the results the non-aggression principle logically leads to mean we ought to question its universal application.
Neera K. Badhwar explores how the distinction between fully voluntary actions and actions done under duress applies to market exchanges.
We should never forget that the state is an institution for compelling people to act against their will.
Does the non-aggression principle prohibit all pollution, including industry, driving, and flashlights?
Powell argues against paternalism, demonstrating that it is little more than a way to impose your values on others.
Libertarian philosophy is a “big tent” and we can learn much from philosophers we may disagree with.
It is important to argue clearly, not loudly.
J. C. Lester Responds to Matt Zwolinski, Part 1: The Maximization of Liberty, Defining Coercion, and Voluntary Rights Forfeiture
Powell looks at the “entitlement theory” of justice and the closing words of Anarchy, State and Utopia on how the minimal state can inspire us.
Zwolinski continues his discussion with David Friedman, arguing that there are situations where the presumption of freedom can be overridden.
Friedman continues his debate with Matt Zwolinski over property rights.