If anything, it’s to maximize human liberty; not either maximizing rights, or minimizing limitations on those rights.

From an application standpoint, those may be effective methodologies (or not… depending on how they are implemented); but they are not a philosophical foundation.

because reality is not philosophically ideal…

…at which point it isn’t REALLY a bright line absolute test anymore

For example, I believe it can be legitimate to initiate coercive economic or social force; where the initiation of physical force would not be.

Also, a differentiation can sometimes be made between individual actors initiation of force, voluntary collective initiation of force, and initiation of force by government against an individual or voluntary collective.

It is not ALWAYS necessary to make such a differentiation, but can be circumstantially.

For example, a boycott, or a union picket line (so long as no-one is physically restrained, injured, or threatened), are entirely legitimate initiations of social and economic force by voluntary collectives (leaving aside the question of whether union membership is voluntary). However, the government organizing and initiating a boycott or strike against a private organization, that was engaging in lawful activity and not otherwise abrogating or trespassing on the rights of others, would not be; because the ALL government action is involuntary collective action, conducted under the threat of coercive physical force.

I believe that pre-emption is justified to defend ones rights, and the rights of others.

Strict non-aggressionists don’t

Remember, a lot of philosophical differentiation comes down to definitions.

This of course goes to the core of the differences between those five slightly differentiated versions I mention above as well (non-aggression, non-initiation, anti-coercion etc…)

Some people consider themselves non-aggressionists but they support pre-emption, because they consider a credible threat of force (whether explicitly declared or not) to be a force initiation.

Some do not consider a threat to be initiation of force at all, or that it is only justifiable to respond proportionally (i.e. threaten them back). Some believe that it is only legitimate to respond to an explicitly declared threat, or actions that can ONLY be considered such (if they have another possible explanation, then it isn’t equivalent to a declared threat).

My thought on the matter is, simple: I don’t care if it’s force initiation or not, and I don’t give a damn about proportionality. If you give me what I judge to be credible threat, declared or not, I’m going to utterly destroy you before you have any chance of carrying it out.

I personally find that to be entirely consistent with my interpretation of non-initiation of coercive force. Others do not.

Of course, then you get into the question of what exactly is a credible threat, and how are you qualified to judge when you are clearly going to be biased etc… etc…

Which is how the anti-preemptionists justify their argument that it is better to wait for the hit rather than initiate force.

And then there’s the complication I include above “or the defense of the rights of others”. Some believe that is a legitimate justification of force, some believe it is not; that force can only be initiated or responded to on ones own behalf.

First off, great essay!

I’m a little curious about the last line in your post about the NAP not being absolute. Can you think of an instance where initiating force would be justified? (i.e. consistent with your principles) The only example I can think of at the moment is a nation declaring war against yours (or otherwise making it clear that the nation in question will initiate force in the immediate future). Even in this example, however; I would argue that any such declaration would be a threat and constitute their initiation of force.

Agree/disagree?

“The political philosophy that seeks to maximize the rights of the individual.”

I believe it can encompass many, perhaps all, schools of libertarian thought, and even unify the anarchists and minarchists.