Related:
- Universal Principles of Liberty
- Rights as Metanorms; Rights and Morals as Intersecting Sets Not as Subset of Morals
- Legal Foundations of a Free Society, ch 2, ch. 6 n.22, ch. 14 Part II.A
- LiquidZulu’s Free Course: “The Fundamentals of Libertarian Ethics”
-
The “I would never violate rights” is IMO different from the more principled argument Wendy McElroy makes against voting, in her classic article “Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler.” See https://stephankinsella.com/2023/09/libertarian-answer-man-voting-for-libertarians/#footnote_6_18425 and
Adam Haman, Misunderstanding the NAP: LiquidZulu attacks Dave Smith… and punches himself in the face. Adam Haman, Haman Nature substack (Nov. 13, 2025)
I just watched (because I’m a masochist) a video over 3 hours in length by a fellow with the handle “LiquidZulu (LZ)”. He used that time to blast Dave Smith for being unsound on libertarian theory and “afraid to debate him” or something.
I don’t know LZ and I am uninterested in his beef with Dave. Dave can handle that business himself.
But I was interested in something LZ said that seems not only wrong, but batshit insane.
In a segment (around the 1:15:00 mark) where LZ was lambasting Dave for being wishy-washy (or unknowledgeable) about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) he said the following:
“Give it a shot, Dave. Ask me any hardcore NAP question and watch me bite the bullet like you’re incapable of doing. Watch me tell people to their face they should not steal a penny to stop the Martians from blowing up the entire planet.”
Welp, that statement is just nuts, folks. And it’s also a huge misunderstanding of the NAP.
The NAP is just a shorthand term for a libertarian legal theory that is based on property rights*. It states the principles that are at the heart of a libertarian legal order. It says (or roughly points to, as principles do) what the law should be.
See the magnificent new Universal Principles of Liberty recently created by Stephen Kinsella (and others) for a taste of what I’m talking about. Or see here. And for a fuller explanation, see Kinsella’s magnificent Legal Foundations of a Free Society, chapters 2, 6, and 14.
According to libertarian theory, it is illegal for you to steal the penny in order to (by your estimation) save the planet Earth from destruction by the Martians.
But does that mean (as LZ insists) that one “should not steal a penny” to prevent the Earth’s destruction and (presumably) the death of all humanity?
No. Of course not. Don’t be stupid.
LZ’s error is to insist that legality is identical to morality. That isn’t remotely true. The two things often align, but they are by no means the exact same thing.
I submit that the moral thing to do in LZ’s bizarre hypothetical is to steal the penny, save the Earth, and then confess your crime and prepare for the legal consequences.
Explain the (massive) exigent circumstances and throw yourself on the mercy of the court/victim/arbiter/what-have-you.
I’m guessing the punishment will be slight, if any. Perhaps you will have to apologize and return (or replace) the penny.
Libertarians are often ridiculed for being strident, and autistically blind to the real world outside their armchair philosophizing. LZ’s weird statement in this video is an example of why that caricature is often apt.
In an emergency situation, it is possible to violate the law and still have acted morally. It depends on the circumstances. It is also subject to interpretation and dependent on a complete moral theory, which libertarianism doesn’t pretend to be.
If my wife and I are stranded in the woods, lost, cold, and starving and come upon a locked cabin where food and shelter await within, we am not going to knock on the door, shrug, and walk further into the freezing woods cursing our bad luck if nobody was home to invite us in.
I’m going to violate the law (and the cabin owner’s property rights) and enter. We will eat his food and sleep under his roof and warm ourselves up with his blankets. Then, once the emergency is over, I’m going to admit to my violation of the law, beg forgiveness, explain why, and make restitution.
If the victim and/or the legal system punishes me — fine. I did, in fact, commit a crime.
But did I act immorally? That’s not clear. Is saving our lives “worth more” than the minor damage and theft ( for which I will happily reimburse the fellow) I caused? That’s unclear. Legally, I am in the wrong. Morally? That’s a deeper question.
In the case of the stolen penny versus the destruction of the Earth, I’m going to go out on a limb and say it was completely moral to steal that cent. Yes, illegal, according to libertarianism, but moral.
And of course it is moral, good, and proper to pay the penny back as quickly as you are able.
Libertarianism isn’t idiotic. It also doesn’t force us into mass suicide for lack of one penny.
What libertarianism is is a political philosophy that describes the principles for a legal order. Let’s not get nuts and let the Martians blow up the planet because our moms took a wee bit too much Tylenol during pregnancy.
Naturally,
Adam
*As Kinsella says in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (linked above) “The nonaggression principle is also dependent on property rights, since what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are. If you hit me, it is aggression because I have a property right in my body. If I take from you the apple you possess, this is trespass, aggression, only because you own the apple. One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim.”
