I didn't mean mutual in the libertarian theory sense, but in the common sense and foreign policy context.This isn't Rothbardian dogma. It not being mutual just means not asking permission to defend yourself. I don't think you understand what mutual means. It means asking. That's it. And libertarians don't need to ask for permission to defend themselves. Again, the comparison to christianity comes in helpful here. Just because the person living next door hates Christians doesn't mean you somehow can't be a Christian, even if they try to kill you for it. It doesn't break some principle of Christianity.
As in, applicable only to other entities that subscribe to NAP too.
Otherwise you are vulnerable to other groups using the classic predatory policy of "When we are in a position of weakness, you can't attack us because NAP is your principle, but once we do get into a position of strength while not having to fear your attack, we will attack you, because NAP is not our principle".
One could call NAP a libertarianism flavored non-aggression pact. But it's crazy to follow a pact when the other side didn't even sign it in the first place.
Funny that you bring up Christianity, it too has the full span of controversy regarding when aggression is OK, how much of it is ok, and where the justifications end, from strict pacifists to a crusade NOW wing and lots of positions in between.
Obviously the party can be taken over by a specific ideological camp in it, so let's not beat around the bush, this is what happened.It's quite frankly a nonsensical objection.
Oh, but we can make an educated guess.
The Libertarian Party is a specific ideological subdivision, yes. But then even libertarians are defined by belief in the NAP.
I'd again use the Christian comparison here: those that don't actually believe in God or Jesus, but still claim to be Christian, aren't Christian. Yes, many don't follow this. But then they are simply wrong.
As for NAP, libertarianism had NAP developed in its early days, without needing it to exist in the first place, and it's something even discussed only by libertarians.
It's more like claiming that Marian dogma is necessary to be a true Christian, even though many were Christians before that was a thing, and even now that would mean Protestants don't count.
The Origin of “Libertarianism” | Mises Institute
Our modern “libertarian” movement is often traced back to the classical liberals and before, and there are of course influences and predecessor ideas, but in my
mises.org
Mises.org has a whole article on origins of libertarianism without mentioning NAP a single time.
And that's written by a guy who subscribes to NAP and leans ancap enough to exclude minarchists from libertarianism wholesale.
I'd say the part about small government, free market and private property is core to libertarianism, the rest is add-ons, post-hoc justifications, customization options and divergent branches.
If you were right, it would be like a Christian church trying to explain the origin of Christianity without mentioning Jesus.
Even wikipedia article on it says so:So there aren't actually 'plenty of libertarian critiques of it'. Sure, you managed to find one, good job. I'm sure if you looked you could find maybe a few more. Only that one is one of the main people who tried to add socialism onto libertarianism in his blog bleedingheartlibertarianism, which was 'how do we add a welfare state onto libertarianism' (exactly as dumb as it sounds).
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Considered by some" is a qualifier i can agree with as long as i don't have to join them.The non-aggression principle is considered by some to be an essential idea of libertarianism, voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism or minarchism.[9][10][11][12]
Another guy on the site also criticizes it from the pragmatic angle, with better and worse examples.
Loading…
www.libertarianism.org
Only among certain wing of libertarians leaning towards 60's counterculture influence.Now there are a lot of reasons/ways some believe in the NAP. David Friedman believes in it because it's effective, but doesn't declare it as some perfect thing. Others are more like me and take it as the moral value. But this is what Libertarianism means: belief in the NAP.
For others, like me, libertarianism is about small government, low regulation, personal liberty and low taxes, and libertarians should stick to that, it's ridiculous when libertarians get into passionate arguments about foreign policy interventionism and say it's about core principles of libertarianism when it has nothing to do with these things and only makes them look even more unvotable weirdos than what they should be arguing, do you people expect to get the hippy vote and win with it?