Definition

Initiating nonconsensual physical force means to engage in an act of violence upon someone without that person’s agreeing.

Discussion

Overview

As property is a feature of self-ownership, “violence” includes intereference with property.

Accordingly, initiating nonconsensual physical force concerns not only harm to another’s physical body but also damaging, preventing or stealing, for instance, another’s property.

In this sense, initiating nonconsensual physical force is akin to the kindergarten rule to keep “your hands to yourself” or “don’t hurt others or take their stuff”.

The non aggression principle

In libertarianism, initiating nonsconsensual physical force is the core of the non-aggression principal (NAP).

However, the NAP also prohibits all forms of aggressing. Live and Let Live categorizes aggressing into the eight categories to provide certainty on how to apply it. The Legal Principle to not aggress offers clarity by itemizing when a particular type of act violates another’s self-ownership.

The NAP and the Legal Principle carry the same message in different ways. While the NAP is broad, the Legal Principle is functional. Following either will lead to freedom.

What is “initiation”?

Initiating nonconsensual physical force includes assault, theft, rape, trespass of all types, murder, infecting with a dangerous disease, etc.

The exact point at which an act becomes an ‘initiation’ of nonconsensual physical force is itself a continuum and not always obvious. A court or jury will have to weigh all the evidence and keep the spirit of the 3L Legal Principle in mind.

For example, an unarmed stranger walking calmly towards you in the street with a smile is clearly not such an initiation of aggression. However, if that same person invaded your personal space while screaming insults with raised fists, an initiation of physical force, or at least a threat thereof, has occurred. Even here, though, there is ambiguity about how close is too close.

It is unavoidable that there are complex cases, with evidence finely balanced - this is an issue in today’s world as much as it would be in a society that has fully adopted 3L.

Consensual initiations of force, like a boxing match, are, of course, not a breach of the Legal Principle unless the force used exceeds the scope of the consent given.

Consent can be the explicit granting of permission or a licence, or it can be implicit, depending on the circumstances. There is a presumption that the most recent such communication prevails.

In certain circumstances consent may be implicit, such as in negotiorum gestio (Latin meaning of management of another’s affairs without mandate). For example, it would be considered reasonable to pull someone out of harm’s way without consent if they had not seen an approaching vehicle.

Implementation

Refer to 2.1. of Ulex (version 1.2) concerning tort (e.g. American Law Institut’s Restatement of Torts, Second (1965-79)).