Against the NAP

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the core of many libertarian social theories. In essence, it states that men should be free to enter to engage in any action or contract which does not violate the rights of others. On the surface, this may seem like a reasonable social principle, or at least a reasonable one at the theoretical level, even if it can’t be put into practice in reality. 

However, it has a fundamental flaw: it would permit, and in fact, discourage every form sexual harassment or technically “consensual” sexual assault. According to the NAP, an employer should have the right to demand sexual favors from his female employees (or male/non-binary ones for that matter.) The NAP principle is not merely silent on the issue of prostitution and contractual sexual harassment, but asserts that these things must be protected, as part of the right of contract, which flows from the right of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. 

Not only should employers have the right to demand sexual favors from their employees, landlords from their tenants, and even retailers from their customers, laws which prohibit such things are a violation of the rights of lecherous employers, as well as the “rights” of the victims of such harassment to contractually consent to such harassment. In essence, the NAP makes the sexual predators of the world into martyrs, as it is their rights who are violated when the law suppresses sexual harassment. 

Instead, the aggressor becomes the law enforcement agents, judges, legislatures, and other magistrates who are avenging such sexual harassment with imprisonment and fines. They persecute the innocent sexual harasser, who only was engaging in morally lawful business. Indeed, they persecute the victim, by preventing her (or him) from also engaging in the morally lawful business of rendering sexual favors to their employer/landlord/etc. 

I’m sure other absurdities could be discovered, but the sexual harassment problem alone should be more than sufficient to refute the concept that all lawful human action ought be subject to contracts and legally binding agreements. However, this is another absurdity I should bring up. 

Is a man merely existing in a state of nature committing crimes against others? The libertarian impulse would be to say “no.” However, man, in a state of nature does not wear clothes. Therefore, it follows that not wearing clothes in public is not a violation of the NAP. Therefore, it follows that indecent exposure is not a crime. 

This may sound absurd, but that is because the NAP is absurd. Perhaps “absurd” is too strong a word. Rather, the NAP assumes a gross oversimplification of human society, essentially assuming that everyone is an able bodied sound-minded adult male, among other incorrect assumptions and oversimplifications. 

Or to phrase the question another way, what public modesty standards flow from the NAP? The libertarian impulse would be to accept the standard imposed by the property owner, or failing that, the least restrictive standard that is considered “reasonable” within a given society. However, there is no good argument for shifting the modesty standards in a less restrictive direction, until public nudity is legalized. 

I could say more on the topic, but I feel as though I am already repeating myself, and the refutation of the NAP is really not that complex, one just needs to find one good hole in it to refute it. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Neo-Gastonism

  Neo-Gastonism is an ironic political philosophy that idolizes the character Gaston from the 1991 Disney movie, Beauty and the Beast, in which Gaston is portrayed as the protagonist. Obviously, no one thinks Gaston is the unironic hero of the story, rather it is more of a commentary on how both Belle and the Beast are unlikeable and villainous. The idealized version of Gaston is often portrayed as akin to the similar looking Brom Bones from the 1949 Disney short, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.  Gaston is, by far, not the most innocent of Disney characters. For example, Governor Radcliffe from Pocahontas does nothing wrong, and is in complete agreement with his crew until the climax of the movie, when he mistakes the Chief Powhatan’s sparing of John Smith as a trap. The English crew were literally singing about “Killing savages,” on their voyage across the Atlantic. The evil of the Beast should be obvious. He takes Belle’s father, Maurice, prisoner, abuses his staff, holds Belle...
Read more

My Issues With the Antioch Declaration

  The Antioch Declaration is an “anti anti-Semitic” statement of faith signed by various confessional Protestants. Leaving aside the question of if the conscience of a Christian is bound to post-biblical historical facts, the Antioch Declaration has several other glaring issues. To begin with, the Antioch Declaration rails against the Enlightenment, without understanding what rejecting the Enlightenment would actually entail, as though going back to the Good Old Days of the early 17th century would mean equal rights for all. There is no true reactionary conservatism, of the type of Metternich or Charles X of France in the Anglosphere, who truly wants to undo the Enlightenment, and return the medieval style “throne and altar” conservatism.  In the United Kingdom, the most reactionary politicians of the 19th century believed in constitutional monarchy and the values of the Glorious Revolution of 1689. They were hesitant classical liberals, resisting change, but making no serious...
Read more

On Professional Hot Chicks

 Some on the social activist left point to the example of Hooters waitresses, cheerleaders, and the like as examples of heterosexual sexualization of public spaces. Obviously, these examples are not as bad as drag shows for children. However, I would assert that defending such practices is self-defeating. I would assert that the fundamental problem is employing what I call a “professional hot chick” in non-adult spaces. I define a “professional hot chick” as a person (traditionally nearly always female) who is employed for the purpose of being physically attractive, even if she is employed in other tasks. Examples of professional hot chicks include sex workers, and also cheerleaders, sexualized waitresses, actresses in certain contexts, beauty pageant contestants, and so on. The definition would exclude women who are not indulging lust as part of their occupation, hence the modifier “professional.” However, for the purpose of this article, I am speaking primarily about professional...
Read more