Neera K. Badhwar explores how the distinction between fully voluntary actions and actions done under duress applies to market exchanges.
A stringent application of the non-aggression principle has morally unacceptable implications.
Kuznicki responds to Matt Zwolinski’s call for scrapping the non-aggression principle.
Sanchez argues that the non-aggression principle is ultimately circular, and shouldn’t be the basis for a libertarian theory of politics.
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.
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.
Aggression and property rights are, by themselves, not the only categories relevant to moral or juridical evaluation.
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.
Libertarians certainly like to debate the merits of the non-aggression principle. Matt Zwolinksi attempts to figure out what libertarians really think.