The Non-Aggression Principle: a Short History

This paper traces the historical origins of the non-aggression princi- ple. The central thesis of this paper is that a large and diverse group of history’s most eminent thinkers have expressed ideas very similar to the non-aggression principle. The rudiments of the principle were known to the ancient Egyptians around 2000 BC, the ancient Hindus around 1500 BC, and the ancient Hebrews around 1000 BC. Around 500 BC, the ancient Chinese and Greek philosophers expressed the underlying logic of the principle. Cicero came close to articulating the principle in its modern form. Thomas Aquinas reasserted something strikingly similar to non-aggression after the Dark Ages, and the scholastic philosophers carried the idea into the early modern period. During the seventeenth century, the non-aggression principle rose to the pinnacle of Western philosophy. JEL Classification: B11, B12, K00, P14 Keywords: Non-aggression principle, ethics, libertarianism Resumen: Este artículo traza los orígenes históricos del principio de no agresión. La tesis central es que un amplio y diverso grupo compuesto por algunos de los pensadores más importantes de la historia ha expresado ideas muy similares al principio de no agresión. Los rudimentos de dicho principio eran conocidos por los antiguos egipcios hacia el 2000 a. C., por los hindúes hacia el 1500 a. C., y por los antiguos hebreos hacia el 1000 a. C. Hacia el 500 a. C., los antiguos chinos y los filósofos griegos expresaron la lógica subyacente del principio. Cicerón se acercó a la articulación del principio en su forma mod- erna. Tomás de Aquino reafirmó algo sorprendentemente similar a la no agresión después de la Edad Oscura, y los teólogos católicos llevaron la idea hasta el periodo moderno. Durante el siglo XVII, el principio de no agresión se elevó al pináculo de la filosofía occidental. Clasificación JEL: B11, B12, K00, P14 Palabras clave: Principio de no agresión, ética, libertarianismo “No one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defen- sively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no vio- lence may be employed against a nonaggressor.” — Murray N. Rothbard 1974, 116 “The use of coercion can be justified only where this is neces- sary to secure the private domain of the individual against inter- ference by others … coercion should not be used to interfere in that private sphere where this is not necessary to protect others.” — Friedrich Hayek 1976, 221