Regarding “fraud”: Matthew Reece, Z-whatever-iski and all of the commenters have ignored Ayn Rand’s identification that fraud is a corollary of force.


A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner.

Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.

Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury.

The Virtue of Selfishness

“The Nature of Government,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 111

Why Libertarians Should Continue to Accept the Non-Aggression Principle (Alternate title at Statist Attack on Libertarianism)

By Michael S. Rozeff

April 28, 2014


Zwolinski presents six reasons. I’ll start with his number 4. He writes “Libertarians usually say that violence may legitimately be used to prevent either force or fraud. But according to NAP, the only legitimate use of force is to prevent or punish the initiatory use of physical violence by others.”

The latter sentence, in which Zwolinski narrows down the NAP to exclude fraud, is entirely without foundation in fact. To see this, let’s compare what Murray Rothbard says in The Ethics of Liberty, p. 77.

“Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent, and is therefore ‘implicit theft.’”

A corollary is a statement that follows from one already proven. If defensive violence resists invasive acts against a self-owned person or justly acquired property, which Rothbard earlier makes clear are aggression, then it follows that direct threats and frauds against the same also justify defensive violence. Hence, Zwolinski’s number 4 is a completely baseless argument.

Sent from my 4G LTE Device
Sent from my 4G LTE Device

To Matthew Reece:

The above Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard’s quotes in comments are sufficient for me to see what is going on as it relates to NAP and a Hermeneutist.

It is to Matthew Reece’s credit that I said to myself great job jerking Zwolinski back to the primary base (sovereign self owning individual) from the corollary (property).

And YET something major is missing.

ALL of the writers I could find on the net, Michael S Rozeff included missed the Ayn Rand connection.

Yes, they refuted and debunked Zwolinski but the bottom line is she named what’s going on.

Rand left me something (force, fraud, extortion relationship) to understand Zwolinski, including his latest on minimum wages. No other writer has accomplished that. It’s not the first time she has done this.

The 6 point case against libertarianism can be summed up further as “The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics”. Thank you Murray Rothbard! See Comments and main article as they relate.

Great job debunking for the reasons I gave.

Enough already!

Here is what is my focus and interest. Perhaps join me?

Stop debunking and start building and progressing a way to FILTER SUBSCRIBERS to not no rules, but NO rulers to find and live amongst those who get it! Get what you may ask? Here:


Why is a Political Statement Needed?

Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle[3] are moral/ethical principles.
The basic or minimum requirement for peaceful interpersonal relationships[1] is understanding and adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily understood by most children. But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels (there will ALWAYS BE children coming into adulthood), understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. In larger groups of people, applying moral statements consistently becomes increasingly problematic–especially when modern-day sophists specialize in deliberately distorting and delight in twisting the meaning[4] of even something as simple and rational as the Non-Aggression Principle.

Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do NOT require a person to be “fully rational” nor to understand what moral/ethical principles ARE, nor even to understand what principles are! Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! A characteristic of Political Statements—and a reason why they exist—is that they are more explicit than moral statements and consequently, are less vulnerable to innocent and/or malevolent “interpretations” and deliberate distortions and twisting.That important point is worth repeating:Rules of Conduct, such as a Political Statement or the last five of Moses’ Commandments, are MORE SPECIFIC AND CONCISE and considerably LESS ABSTRACT than moral principles, and are therefore less subject to misinterpretation and less liable to deliberate manipulation.The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a five point (Precepts) Political Statement of interpersonal relationships based on and explicitly derived from the single moral principle in the Non-Aggression Principle.As can be seen in the essays, articles and discussions in Footnote[5], The Covenant of Unanimous Consent reflects a very explicit, sovereign individual oriented morality
The above was copied from:
A similar thing is going on over here:

Stop dreaming and start building some REAL sea steads.

Sent from my 4G LTE Device