#NAP Non-Aggression Principle, Murray Rothbard "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property."
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You
The Non-Aggression Principle is the idea that a recourse sought by a person or the Government on a person should only be taken if that person is responsible for an aggressive recourse in the first place. A person should not be attacked by anyone and only self-defense justifies physical resource. A person whose action harms no one should not be held for a crime, like smoking cannabis in their home. #NoVictimNoCrime
If a crime does occur the state should respond in a manner that is similar to the action taken such as fines for stealing money or goods instead of jail-time. This actually saves tax-payer's money and lets the person work and pay for their crime.
Incarceration actually ruins criminals' lives and leaves them so destitute and ostracized from society that they may never live outside of crime again, and may become habitually institutionalized. Jails are horrible places for teaching bad behavior.
Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor.
The NAP also can be applied to social interaction in that Recourse may be employed only against the person who commits such recourse; that is, only defensively against the aggressive recourse of another. In short, no recourse may be employed against a nonaggressor.
Within social paradigms, the NAP is beneficial, therefore logical, and socially practical. This particular morality is logical and verifiably beneficial in social situation based on quantifiable gains. When the NAP is understood, and practiced it is quantifiable, logical, and objective