>>66962
You may be an exception, if you're a leftist. Didn't check your prior comments for that, sorry.
>In my understanding, Libertarian Non-aggression means something like not initiating force on person OR property. So the notion of property has to be logically prior to the NAP.
The NAP is an accessory to property rights, but it can be derived independently from them. You can have two vastly different conceptions of property but still the same conception of the NAP, you just apply it to different objects. To an anarchosocialist who thinks the NAP doesn't apply to private property, we explain property rights, not the NAP.
>But in more difficult cases when deciding what ownership actually entails it becomes a problem. What about inheritance, for example?
That problem isn't settled by the NAP, but by an analysis of what property entails. It entails, for example, the right of the property owner to transfer his property as he sees fit, which in turn entails that he can transfer it conditionally. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to transfer it under the condition of his death.
>How would you respond to this? https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle
>Prohibits All Pollution
I think something is missing in Rothbards case on this. The criterion which I would apply is whether the immission in question is something that the property already comes into contact with. Shining a flashlight on your house wouldn't be illegitimate, then, as your house already regularly comes into contact with sunlight of comparable intensity. You can't homestead a house that no soundwave ever enters if you don't build a house that doesn't permit any soundwaves to enter it.
>Prohibits Small Harms for Large Benefits
I see the fact that the rothbardian system doesn't permit harm motivated by a utilitarian calculation as a feature, not a glitch. I also think that in scenarios where scratching someones finger lightly would save the planet from being hit by an steroid, the utilitarian calculation is not really what creates our moral revulsion if the guy refuses to have his finger scratched. We'd hardly be less revulsed if the lifes on ten people where at stake, while we would be in a serious moral dilemma if killing him saved a thousand people.
So I think this question carries the wrong implications. Better to figure out what exactly triggers our moral intuitions and try to incorporate it into the theory somehow. I'm still trying to do just that, and I'm willing to modify Rothbard for it. What I won't do is throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I definitely won't make concessions to the hypothetical scenario where a tax of 1% on all billionaires solves global hunger, that's an unrealistic scenario and it reeks of leftist sentiment.
>All-or-Nothing Attitude Toward Risk
Is the risk elevated significantly beyond the normal risk of living your life? Then it's impermissible. For example, you cannot prohibit an airplane passing over your head at an altitude of ten thousand feet because the risk of you being killed or harmed by it is not even a fraction of a percent. Your choice of breakfast has a stronger influence on your chance of surviving the day.
>No Prohibition of Fraud
Rothbard did address that problem. The solution is actually very straightforward from his conception of contracts: If I sell you my car for a hundred dollars, and you take my cars and refuse to pay me, then I still own my car. So fraud is just another form of theft.
>Parasitic on a Theory of Property
Like I said, that's not true. Or rather, it is true in a sense, but only in the same way as any right of self defense is parasitic on a theory of rights or property. Still, no one levels this criticism against the right of self defense per se or against any other right that doesn't include its object in the definition.
>What About the Children???
I think Rothbard was wrong on this, too. Permitting your children to starve is aggression, due to a principle we call "Ingerenz" in german jurisprudence. Haven't found a good translation yet. The principle says that if you expose someone to a risk, you have to make sure the risk doesn't realize itself. I think this applies to childbearing, too. If you create a child, you simultaneously expose it to a multitude of risks that you must then control to the best of your ability. If you fail to do that and let your child starve, then that's akin to homicide.
>>66968
Okay, right now, you sound like a really cool dude. Thanks for the recs!