13. “Risking Aggression: Reply to Block”
by Kris Borer
Abstract: In his paper, “Is There an ‘Anomalous’ Section of the Laffer Curve?”, Walter Block describes some situations in which it appears that a libertarian should violate the non-aggression principle. To rectify this, Block proposes a different perspective on libertarianism which he calls punishment theory. This paper argues that no new theory is needed, as the non-aggression principle can be used to resolve the
apparent conundrums.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Page 7, first row: “… against does mean that…” should be “… against does NOT mean that…”
Thanks for pointing that out.
Ha, that was great. I laughed at some examples. Great work. Though the opening was a bit rough hehe.
Thank you, Aubrey.
You say, “Every action involves
uncertainty and, therefore, some risk of violating the NAP.” (And then you strangely cite Mises — as supporting that statement?…which amazingly passed LP peer review??)
If trapped in my coffin (purchased from Costco), I scratch my chin before resuming scratching through the lid…what is the risk of violating NAP with these actions?
In your coffin scenario, I think the risk of violating the NAP is very low. However, very low is not the same as zero. You can design scenarios where the risk is arbitrarily small, but as long as there are two people, you can create a set of circumstances that would lead to conflict.
For example, if scratching your nose shifted the weight of the coffin, which caused a splinter to break off and embed itself in someone’s skin. It is very, very unlikely, but not impossible.
As far as the Mises quote, it plainly says that there is uncertainty inherent in every action.