Occasionally a neo-conservative gets it in his mind that he can disprove libertarianism.  The effort is made by taking the non-aggression axiom, that no one may properly initiate force on others, and invoke situations that are supposed to discredit it.  These "exceptions" generally fall into one of two categories: actions toward friends made in their own best interest, or actions toward one's children.  After "disproving" libertarianism with such examples, the neo-con will then conclude with a few condescending paragraphs on how libertarianism is a simplistic philosophy that should only appeal to rebellious kids and druggies.

If misconceptions about libertarianism were limited to Jonah Goldberg, the issues mentioned would hardly seem worth explaining.  But even a libertarian can become confused, and occasionally we hear one suggest that the non-aggression axiom be expanded or revised. However, with a proper understanding of natural rights and the meaning of the axiom, we will see that no such change is warranted.

A proper understanding of rights begins with human action and property.  Rights are unique to humans because only humans are sentient beings capable of rational action.  That is, only humans voluntarily and consciously employ means to reach desired ends.  As such, the concept of rights only has meaning with regard to human action.  Rights give the ethical guidelines for action that are derived from man's nature:  self-ownership, the right to property, the right to self-defense, and in general the right to peacefully act.  A handy summation of all of man's rights is contained in the non-aggression axiom: man may act in whatsoever manner he chooses, so long as he does not initiate force on others (and in so doing infringe upon their right to act as they choose).

An infringement of someone's rights consists of one individual forcing his own will onto another.  One way to think of this is in terms of property.  Person A justly possesses ownership of some given property, meaning that he has exclusive rights to the use of that property.  Any act of person B to make use of that same property without A's approval is an infringement upon A's rights.  It should then be clear that any time an infringement upon rights has occurred, there is an aggressor and a victim.  A key element of an infringement of rights upon a victim is that he believes the act perpetuated upon him leaves him in a worse state than if it had not occurred.  If this is not the case, and the person believes the act left him in a better state, then he was not a victim of a crime but rather the recipient of a gift.  Such an attitude shows that the act in question was not performed by force but rather by consent (no matter how passive).

We can apply this reasoning to the type of example that is supposed to disprove libertarianism.  One such example is that someone is in the middle of the street and is oblivious to an oncoming car.  So you rush out and push the person to the side of the road.  This example is supposed to disprove the non-aggression axiom because you supposedly initiated force on the individual in a case when it seems intuitive that you did the right thing.  However, as we just mentioned above, if a person welcomes your action, then you did not infringe upon their rights.  Did you initiate force to get the person out of the middle of the road?  In a physical sense, yes, but not in the sense of desired action, which is what we use to determine when rights have been infringed upon or not.  Since there is no victim in this example, there is no crime.

Now let's change the example to one seemingly trickier: a friend who wishes to commit suicide.  If you walk in on a friend who is about to put a bullet in his head, are you justified in taking away the gun and restraining the person for a while?  The answer depends upon the state of the friend after that while.  If you rightfully thought that the friend would clear his head and realize his desire to live, then again, the person has welcomed your action and you therefore did not initiate force.  If the friend still desires to commit suicide though, your action was not welcomed, and you did infringe upon his rights.

It might seem contradictory at first that the same action is the basis, in one situation of your having infringed upon his rights and in the other, having not, but that is exactly the point.  While the act is occurring, you do not know whether the action you are taking is one that will be welcomed by the individual or not.  This is the risk you take in assuming control of the person's property, and this is generally a risk good friends take for each other.  The indeterminacy of whether the act will be desired or not is what all of the examples of this kind have in common.  To sort them out, we need only remember that all true crimes must have a victim who did not desire an act that was done upon his property.

The other kind of example that is brought against the non-aggression axiom is that parents must initiate force upon their children.  However, as was discussed earlier, the axiom only applies in the context of human action.  Clearly, newborn babies do not have the rational capability to act and therefore do not have rights in the same way human adults do.  As children grow older, they gradually acquire the characteristic of rational action until they reach a point where they fully gain self-ownership.  Since at some indeterminate point in time children do acquire their full rights, they cannot be wholly treated as property.  But at the same time, they cannot be treated as self-owning adults.  Their parents have a guardian relationship, by which they properly make decisions for them until they are capable of doing this themselves.

One reason neo-conservatives and others might have trouble with the non-aggression axiom is because it does not allow one individual to force his own arbitrary value judgment onto others.  They prefer a self-congratulatory system of ethics whereby one's "common sense" or "best intentions" dictate the proper thing to do. Libertarianism is the only system that allows every individual to seek his own arbitrary desired ends while forbidding only those actions that forcefully interfere with others' such ends.