An introduction to thinking about the state within a framework of virtue ethics.
Libertarians certainly like to debate the merits of the non-aggression principle. Matt Zwolinksi attempts to figure out what libertarians really think.
The Non-Aggression Principle (i.e., Respecting Liberty) is Necessary and Sufficient for Libertarianism
Philosopher J. C. Lester defends the non-aggression principle by arguing that we should better understand it as a minimization of aggression principle.
An introduction to virtue, the life well-lived, and the state’s role in the good life.
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.
A stringent application of the non-aggression principle has morally unacceptable implications.