!["You're not experienced enough to be in charge!" [605x906 - 534KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/xrlAG8.png){kind=link}
It's all about that non-aggression principle, but who defines what is and isn't aggression? Perhaps that's what makes it salvageable though. For example, if I define propagandizing my kids--which encourages nonreproductive lifestyles--as a violation of the NAP, I can then defend myself and my kids, with force if necessary. Welcome to Dark Libertarianism.
I'm down with dark libertarianism then, as long as it includes organized defense.
Non aggression to them means passive aggression.
Aggression can be subjective.
For example, is it aggressive if, when walking passed you in the opposite direction, our shoulders collide? Possible aggressive behavior from me... possibly also just an accident.
Then you have objective aggression, where a person makes a determination to engage in violence against someone unprovoked.
It's Hans-Herman Hoppe who's a Paleolibertarian I think would probably most align with the form of libertarianism that would be a bit more by force.
(post is archived)