It's just an extension of the Non Aggression Principle. Under the NAP the first person to claim injury is the moral actor, therefore the winning strategy is to claim injury early and often. Libertarianism is just a subset of Leftism.
Not that I don’t enjoy dunking on libertarianism, but I’m not sure how that philosophy is uniquely vulnerable to this, or at least, would be uniquely vulnerable for the reason you described. Claiming anything that was recognized as an actionable injury would still have a similar—perhaps even more potent—effect in a harshly authoritarian setting.
Authoritarian don't need the NAP to justify their actions, whereas Libertarians (at least a few years ago) were always harping on the NAP. It's just that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, and people just don't seem to get that.
Think about how claims of anti-semitism would work under a "might makes right" system: The universal answer would be "so what?"
Okay, but that's not necessarily unique to Libertarianism, which was my point. We can imagine a absolute might makes right system, but we can also imagine—and are much closer to living in—a highly authoritarian system where the worst crimes are things like "antisemitism" and "racism" and "sexism." I don't believe that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, because the NAP is not the only moral system in which committing certain offenses against someone is seen as wrong.
It's just an extension of the Non Aggression Principle. Under the NAP the first person to claim injury is the moral actor, therefore the winning strategy is to claim injury early and often. Libertarianism is just a subset of Leftism.
Not that I don’t enjoy dunking on libertarianism, but I’m not sure how that philosophy is uniquely vulnerable to this, or at least, would be uniquely vulnerable for the reason you described. Claiming anything that was recognized as an actionable injury would still have a similar—perhaps even more potent—effect in a harshly authoritarian setting.
Authoritarian don't need the NAP to justify their actions, whereas Libertarians (at least a few years ago) were always harping on the NAP. It's just that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, and people just don't seem to get that.
Think about how claims of anti-semitism would work under a "might makes right" system: The universal answer would be "so what?"
Okay, but that's not necessarily unique to Libertarianism, which was my point. We can imagine a absolute might makes right system, but we can also imagine—and are much closer to living in—a highly authoritarian system where the worst crimes are things like "antisemitism" and "racism" and "sexism." I don't believe that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, because the NAP is not the only moral system in which committing certain offenses against someone is seen as wrong.
Could you provide an example? I cannot think of any that aren't just the NAP with a thin veneer over it.