Robert P. Murphy

this was my favorite Reply todayhttps://twitter.com/hack_rc/status/1453127597940871169 …

this guy read all 14 posts and still doesn't get it.https://twitter.com/drsuffy/status/1453181276207386634 …

It's Kinsella. He's smart enough and it explains his self-confidence.https://twitter.com/NSKinsella/status/1453167891432579074 …

14/14 OK my work is done here.

13/n actually *isn't* a violation of the NAP. (E.g. telling local police not to cooperate with feds on vax passports.) Or some of it *is* a violation--like threatening families of politicians--and I think the NAP is quite correctly ruling it off-limits.

12/n I've seen some people (e.g. @TheDanCotter) say it might include sit-ins at places that have mask mandates, comparable to the 1960s sit-ins to break down segregated lunch counters. That's the best kind of example I've heard. But most of the other stuff

11/n can be immoral even if it's consistent with property rights. Again, this is Libertarianism 101. But now if your proposed SOLUTION involves violating the NAP, that's where we get into dangerous territory.

10/n I haven't seen a very good critique of it. Most of what I've seen is of the form, "I don't like a business setting certain policies (about masks, vax, or social media posts), and just because this in their property rights, doesn't mean we have to take it." Right, something

9/n employment contract agreeing to certain things (like wearing a uniform at work). Now it's true, there are all sorts of problems people have raised with the NAP. I personally didn't really put too much emphasis on it myself over the years. But in the present political debates

8/n to not become heroin addicts. But that's the same principle as McDonald's saying, "You have to wear the McD uniform to work here, or we'll escort you off the property." It's not that people forfeit their self-ownership in the vicinity of hamburgers, it's that you can sign an

7/n for violating anti-sodomy laws. Now it gets tricky because in a totally free society, the land owners could set up rules for what goes on, on their property. So e.g. there could be gated communities where all the homeowners agreed ahead of time to not play music at 2am, and

6/n To reiterate, just because something is consistent with property rights, doesn't mean everybody else has to applaud it. E.g. you can say, "I think homosexuality is a sin." You can refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding. But what you *can't* do is (say) throw someone in a cage

5/n So notice in that standard example from the NAP tradition, we see that something can be immoral and not a NAP violation. So all the right-wingers pointing out this possibility, aren't telling us anything new.

4/n For example, you can think heroin addiction is a grave sin and a horrible social ill. But in standard NAP framework, the heroin addict per se isn't violating anybody's rights, so it would be immoral for you to throw him in a cage against his will to detox him.

3/n Basically, the NAP is a limiting principle that reduces the situations in which it is moral for you to use force or threat of force to change someone's behavior.

2/n The NAP says it would be immoral to initiate aggression against a non-aggressor. Re-read that a few times if needed. The NAP does NOT say (1) the only moral principle is the NAP nor does it say (2) if something is within property rights, it's moral.

1/n Let me give a quick tutorial on how the Nonaggression Principle (NAP) is used in the Rothbardian tradition, so we can move on to more important things like Dave Chappelle.

THEM: "We need to start dropping bombs to achieve our political goals." ME: "That would be immoral and also terrible for PR reasons." THEM: "omg we meant taking really smelly dumps. So now natural bodily functions are against the NAP? Always knew you were a leftist."

This is a great example of someone having the right end but the wrong means.https://twitter.com/MarketWatch/status/1453054741634822146 …