For those that have never heard of it, you’ll see later why it’s not something the two major political parties and mainstream media want us to talk about or discuss its merits.
The NAP, as it is often referred to, is a philosophical legal concept which precludes individuals from harming other individuals or their justly acquired property, with the exception of protecting themselves and/or others and their justly acquired property from someone else who is breaking the NAP. Simply, you’re not supposed to harm others or their property and if you do, they have the legal right of self-defense to stop you.
This is actually the underlying basis of most modern-day legal systems in our world. So of course, you believe in it, right? Most laws are based on this ethical principle of not harming one another called “mala in se” laws and when people do break one of the laws we classify them as a criminal.
From Wikipedia: Malum in se (plural Mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited by political mandate.
A judicial citation: An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).
Now here is the problem or really a dilemma with the NAP. It doesn’t necessarily apply to those individuals who represent and/or work for the nation-state, i.e. the government. The nation-state can simply enact mala in se and mala prohibitum laws and use force and coercion to enforce them. All your drug laws, vices such as prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, DUI, licensure laws such as driver and real estate licensing, permits, income taxes, public education, property taxes, etc. are all laws that break the NAP. They must use the force of coercion to enforce them or the Citizens would simply ignore them. Of course, the government will fine or incarcerate those that break the various laws, hence the use of force or coercion as the physical means of enforcement. I think it is pretty evident that everyone agrees that malum in se laws should be rigorously enforced but malum prohibitum laws is where the debates and differences of opinion really become apparent.
Their enforcement requires the use of force or coercion by those in the nation-state to carry out the politically derived mandates. They must physical steal or coerce people into giving them the money it requires to fulfil the governments social policies.
It’s not OK for an individual to break the NAP, but those who form the largest or most powerful political party and their employees can and do. I’m not here to try to determine right and wrong at this point or what laws we should or shouldn’t have, I’m here is help people understand the principle and how it affects our lives. Later I share what a few of our founding fathers said.
Every tax, fine or regulatory fee is a breach of the NAP because it takes money or property from those who justly earned it and thus it “Rightfully” belongs to and gives it those that didn’t justly earn it and thus it does NOT rightfully belong to. This is the ethical foundation of our “Inalienable Rights” and why the Citizens required a Bill of Rights be created before they would ratify the U.S. Constitution. These rights were specifically to stop those in government from taking the Citizens money and enacting malum prohibitum laws.
Of course, those in government have twisted the very words in the Bill of Rights and Constitution where today government just about goes unstrained in both size and scope of powers. Instead of check and balances between the three branches, they are either rubber-stamping one another’s decisions and actions or suing one another when they breach or overstep their constitutionally mandated scope of powers. The various branches of our government and those individuals in the bureaucracy are in constant legal battles. The Federal government alone cost taxpayers over $4 trillion “annually” and requires over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees to pay for it all.
To give you an idea of what our founding fathers set out to establish with our founding documents, all one must do is to read a few of the quotes of the first three Presidents.
Thomas Jefferson, the Third President “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
George Washington, the First President “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
John Adams, the Second President “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.
One of the most important rights is that of “property” protected by our Constitution as well as the NAP. How have we gone from a society set up to protect our property and money from being confiscated by criminals and the government, to one where the government is now the greatest confiscator? The greater questions are 1. can government be restrained from confiscating to much of the majority’s wealth and if so 2. how do we do it when it starts to cause such great problems for the majority and our society as a whole?