Property rights are the foundation necessary to explain the role of non-aggression. In other words, the non-aggression principle is simply another of way of saying individuals have a right against aggression from others as a result of property. Non-aggression alone does not tell us what property rights people have, or why they have these rights to begin with.

The only way for the state to finance its operations is through the forcible expropriation of productive wealth from its citizens.

Because rights are only claims against other people, and not claims on other people and their property, rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

To make a claim of ownership implies a claim against others. That is, others must refrain from interfering with your use of that thing. As such the very act of the body occupying its standing room is to make a claim against others because only one body can occupy the space at a time.

The law itself was originally created in order to protect property. However, the law has been falsely attributed to being the reason property exists in the first place. At least, this is what the state would have us believe. The law does not create property rights because these already existed before the law was created. It is this false attribution that allows the state apparatus to conduct its mission of expropriation.

Democracy is the antithesis of liberty. The foundation and cornerstone of liberty is private property and majority rule is thus logically incompatible with this.

The repeal of laws as a means to roll back the state is not unjustified. For example, there is no coercion against those who would pick our pockets for “free” healthcare or education, rather it is more so an act of self-defense. As such, we are free to use the state’s political apparatus to further a platform against aggression, democracy, and egalitarianism, while supporting property rights.

Ultimately it must be accepted by advocates of limited government that the same guns that are promised to protect the population may be used on them.

It must be noted that the non-aggression alone can never be the starting point in justifying moral behavior or serving as a fundamental principle of ethics. There must be a justification of the non-aggression principle before such a case can be made. The very implication of the term “principle” implies that non-aggression serves as the foundation for a system of ethics, which it cannot be. It is certainly not an axiom since it is not a self-evident truth.

Any system of ethics must account for scarcity. If it doesn’t, humanity would perish due to misallocation of finite resources, including one’s own body.