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.
The NAP was only formulated in the 20th century. It derives from previously-existing moral standards, not the other way around. Almost every society in history has included rules about killing, theft, rape, property, etc. Even if you want to restrict it to social offenses—which I did not, because social offenses are absolutely not the only offense one could falsify in order to get someone in trouble—pretty much every society has had hierarchies as well. The serf isn't allowed to make a pass at the princess, and so on.
Newton wrote down the law of gravitation in 1687. People weren't floating off into space before then. The same thing applies to the NAP. Just because it was called something different doesn't mean it was actually something different.
Look at the history of casus belli. Cato the Elder wanted war against Carthage because they were becoming a threat and should be destroyed while they were weak. The Mongol Khanate wanted war because they were stronger and thus it was their right. Both of those are very much a might makes right casus belli. The Peace of Westphalia brought about the NAP between nations even though it was not called that back then. In fact the entire concept of jus ad bellum is just a variation of the NAP.
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.
What? How about "Thou shalt not murder"?
The NAP was only formulated in the 20th century. It derives from previously-existing moral standards, not the other way around. Almost every society in history has included rules about killing, theft, rape, property, etc. Even if you want to restrict it to social offenses—which I did not, because social offenses are absolutely not the only offense one could falsify in order to get someone in trouble—pretty much every society has had hierarchies as well. The serf isn't allowed to make a pass at the princess, and so on.
Newton wrote down the law of gravitation in 1687. People weren't floating off into space before then. The same thing applies to the NAP. Just because it was called something different doesn't mean it was actually something different.
Look at the history of casus belli. Cato the Elder wanted war against Carthage because they were becoming a threat and should be destroyed while they were weak. The Mongol Khanate wanted war because they were stronger and thus it was their right. Both of those are very much a might makes right casus belli. The Peace of Westphalia brought about the NAP between nations even though it was not called that back then. In fact the entire concept of jus ad bellum is just a variation of the NAP.