The Non-aggression Principle

In a world with scarce means and resources with infinite wants, conflicts occur. (This is also true for the garden of Eden since despite having infinite resources, one cannot be in the same space and time as another so conflicts still occur)

eg.
Crusoe and Friday on an island
Crusoe is spear fishing with a stick
Friday wants the stick to stoke his fire
CONFLICT arises

Law answers how we should deal with conflicts, and there are only three ways to do it:

1. Conflicts should not be avoided (Jungle Law)
2. Conflicts should be avoided sometimes, but not always (Mixed Law)
3. Conflicts should be avoided, full stop (the NAP)

1 & 2 both reduce to the Primacy of Consciousness fallacy — some group’s whims get to override reality for everyone else — and can be discarded as illogical. That leaves the NAP by elimination.

With respect to all conflicts, aggression is inherently illegitimate and arguing against it is contradictory.

This is proven with Argumentation Ethics This is because argumentation presupposes non-aggression and the attempt to argue otherwise is therefore a performative contradiction. i.e. Arguing that argumentation does not presuppose non-aggression precisely proves that arguing must in fact presuppose non-aggression because you are arguing which cannot be an aggressive action.

Let A be Aggression, which the above proves false. Therefore ~A — Non-Aggression — is true.