Is This Principled Libertarianism (Walter Block on Child Abuse)?

[liberty_student]

@StrangeLoop

My only point is that I know there are circumstances where I would not conform to the NAP (e.g., David Friedman’s example of a stealing a gun to stop a madman), hence I do not believe that non-aggression can be uniformly (i.e., deontologically) applied to the real world.

Then morally, you’re not an ancap. And if you violate free exchange and property rights by choosing aggression, I don’t think you have a very solid case for being an ancap on utilitarian grounds since you abandon it whenever it is inconvenient. That is, it does not provide utility to you else why would you abandon it?

This is what I was getting at before. It’s not possible to debate morality or ethics with you, because you don’t have any principles. If I am wrong, then tell us what your moral principles are.

@StrangeLoop

I would claim that free markets do honor the non-aggression principle, but that’s simply an unintended consequence, not the outcome of moral deliberation.

By definition, a free market has to be without aggression. Involuntary exchange is not a free market. This has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with logic. Any serious utilitarian should be able to tell A from not A.