I read the Abstract and then went into the article and do give it credit for discussing Private Property Rights but as usual the discussion is in the wrong context and therefore not correct. Libertarian Philosophy is based upon two concepts: 1. Non-Aggression, and 2. Private Property Rights. The first is always Non-Aggression. I did not find the work aggress much less anything about the NAP in the PDF of the article. But the NAP is first, all private property rights do is to give meaning to situations where individuals are morally able to use force to defend their lives and property.
If you include the NAP then Libertarian Philosophy can not be the center of a bunch of extreme ends but it is the end itself. The end is the absence of violence and since most violence comes from the state, it is the end of a political spectrum running opposite extreme violence where the state, an agency of force, threats and violence would not wither away but simply could not exist. The violent end would include the murderous ideas take up by the Communists and other totalitarians.
Unfortunately, the Western World is much closer to the end of extreme violence and getting close daily. And unfortunately, the Western World is dragging the rest of the planet in the same direction.
How do you define aggression?
I read the abstract. It's like repackaging everything the mainstream says about libertarianism; an excuse to own guns and smoke pot at the same time. Granted I didn't read the rest of it.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist.
I like this definition:
Aggression is any act of force, theft or fraud committed against the property of another including the self with the exceptions:
1. The act not be to immediately protect persons or property from force, theft or fraud, and then only with the minimal amount of force necessary to thwart the force, theft or fraud.
2. Retrieve persons or property, or get restitution from previous force, theft or fraud, and then only with the minimal amount of force necessary to retrieve the property or restitution.
So, this means one's concept of property must exist first, before we define aggression. And once we have the concept of property, the concept of aggression becomes obsolete. While without it, aggression is ambiguous.
Ahh, I forgot to include threats of force, theft or fraud in addition to the acts themselves. If you include threats of force, theft or fraud then you have to have the two concepts as one person could threaten another and get them to act in a certain way against the preference of the threatened individual AND not violate the private property rights of the individual.
So reword the definition to include threats:
Aggression is any act or threat of force, theft or fraud committed against the property of another including the self with the exceptions ...
You can use retaliatory coercion but you're not being aggressive in threatening someone who will not leave your property, you are in fact repeling their aggression.
... just as the State
has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
FlyingAxe:This shows that we need to understand what property is before we talk about aggression.