[Roscoe]

"Perhaps it is better to define libertarianism not by the non-aggression principle but by the principle that any chosen action contains the possibility of third-party damages, and the moral actor accepts personal responsibility for them. This is not so much letting the end justify the means as recognizing that no human action, even choosing inaction, is without risk of a catastrophic outcome."

"This is, I admit, not a pristine libertarian position. That's because, in the world I see, this libertarian can't find one."

Is J. Neil Schulman in danger of becoming an adult?

[fporretto]

Schulman, a brilliant writer with two fine novels to his credit, has now independently discovered "lifeboat ethics," a subject that is all too infrequently discussed even among rights theorists.

There are many test cases in which pure non-aggression, with full respect for property rights, leads to unacceptable results. David Friedman proposed one in which a killer is popping into a crowd, killing one innocent person after another. The only available gun with which to oppose him is lying in plain sight -- but its owner has threatened to prosecute anyone who touches it for any reason.

Solution: You seize the gun, drop the killer, and take your chances with the jury. Reasonable people will not put you away for committing a minor crime in defense of your life and the lives of innocent others.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best in his fabulous essay "Compensation," the contents of which are sufficient to govern any nation:

If the government is cruel, the governor's life is not safe. If you tax too high, the revenue will yield nothing. If you make the criminal code sanguinary, juries will fail to convict. If the law is too mild, private vengeance comes in.

Other interesting cases where pure non-aggression and ethical individualism -- the two tenets of libertarianism -- are insufficient also exist. I covered several in my essays on "The Conservative-Libertarian Schism," which are still available here at FreeRepublic. However, for ordinary interactions with sane and responsible individuals, they are more than sufficient: they are optimal.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Moby Grape]

The only Libertarian "principle" that has been very evident over the last few years is the "Peter Principle", they rise to the level of their competence....less than 5% of the national vote.

[tpaine]

'Perhaps it is better to define libertarianism not [ONLY] by the non-aggression principle but by the principle that any chosen action contains the possibility of third-party damages, and the moral actor accepts personal responsibility for them.'

A rational statement indeed.

Are you in danger of finally becoming an adult, roscoe?

[FreeTally]

Allowing for any sort of collateral damage to innocent third parties, however, takes us off the map of the primary Objectivist/libertarian non-aggression principle since any use of force, even defensive force, harming innocent third parties violates the non-aggression principle, and likewise can only be justified if one is also arguing the case for the absence of a non-deprivatory alternative.

I have never had anyone give me a plausible scenario where "innocent third parties" are harmed when force is used against and aggressor. I do not consider wars against other countries to be such in most cases.

[kidd]

A good read for all the Utopian-type Libertarians and ANSWER.

The rest of us already knew this stuff.