Source: Libertarian Institute
by Patrick Carroll
“A considerable portion of libertarian infighting seems to stem from the largely unrecognized fact that there are two different ways to interpret the non-aggression principle (NAP). On the surface, the NAP seems clear: aggression is wrong. But there is a deontological way to interpret this and a consequentialist way, and these interpretations are mutually exclusive. Deontological reasoning argues people should refrain from acts of aggression, even if that leads to a less free society. Consequentialist reasoning argues people should act to create as free a society as possible, even if that means using aggression.” (08/25/26)