The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.
In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.
The NAP is considered by some to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism. It is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, (classical) liberalism, libertarianism and minarchism.
Neo-libertarians support the core libertarian principle called the Non-aggression principle, which states that anything that infringes on another persons rights (rights as those God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty and property), is considered to be morally wrong. Libertarians also staunchly support the ideas of liberty and privacy, with many neo-libertarians, including those in the Libertarian Party, calling for an end to the War on Drugs.
Neolibertarians reject the traditional or paleolibertarian understanding of the non-aggression principle with respect to national defense. They do so not because they favor aggression but because the principle, in its standard interpretation, is a non-action principle. It would not allow a preemptive attack on an antagonistic state that is armed, capable of striking us at any time, and known to be contemplating a strike. Neolibertarians, in other words, tend toward hawkishness when it comes to national defense.
Neolibertarians also tend toward a hawkish stance on legitimate crime. We also reject the idea that the press should be allowed to print whatever information it may obtain about America’s defense forces, plans, and operation. We understand that liberty and the prosperity it brings are unattainable in a lawless, defenseless society.
Neolibertarians are unsympathetic to “political correctness,” arguing that government must not do anything to quell impolite speech or to compensate blacks, women, etc., for the past behavior of those who discriminated against them, because to do so penalizes persons now living who are innocent of discrimination. But more than that, Neolibertarians would give individuals and businesses broad latitude in their affairs, penalizing only acts traditionally understood as harmful (e.g., murder, rape, and theft).
Neolibertarians view compulsory taxation—such as income, corporate, carbon, and capital gains taxes—as theft, taking justly earned money by force. We aim to eliminate these, replacing them with a voluntary head tax, direct payments for services, and crowdfunding. Keeping earnings in Canadians’ pockets will boost saving, investment, production, and consumption, energizing the economy. During the transition, a 5% GST will fund military, police, and courts, acting as a semi-voluntary tax tied to consumer choice.
