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.
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.
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.