Non-Aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle is an axiom of philosophical and political thought that states that the initiation of aggression (such as punching someone in the face when they haven't hit you) is bad and should be avoided. Unlike pacificism, it allows for violence in cases of self-defense, so if someone attacks you, you are allowed to hit back.

A common myth people perpetuate about the principle is that it leaves you vulnerable to attack. However, if you have reason to think someone might attack you, you are allowed to take measures to defend yourself, such as buying armaments or reinforcing your home. Just because you shouldn't lash out prematurely at someone doesn't mean you just sit there waiting to be picked off.

The Non-Aggression Principle is very conservative in how it manages risk. Let's say there's a person. They are doing suspicious things you don't like. They are either a) going to attack you or b) doing things differently from you. You can choose to attack or wait/prepare. There are four outcomes:

1. They are going to attack you, but you attack them first.
2. They are going to attack you, but you wait/prepare for it.
3. They aren't going to attack you, but you attack them.
4. They aren't going to attack you, but you prepare for if they do.

In situation 1 and 4, everything is fine. You either stopped them from attacking first or left them alone when they weren't planning to do anything to you. However, in situation 2 and 3, you made a mistake and suffer a penalty. So you have a 50% risk of making the wrong choice.

The Non-Aggression Principle says that the loss caused by attacking when in situation 3 is greater than the loss caused by waiting in situation 2. If you prepared correctly there's only so much harm that can be done to you in that initial salvo of situation 2. You can reduce and minimize the risk from that situation in a non-violent manner.

However, situation 3 creates an enemy where once there was none. By attacking, you injured innocent people with no gain. Now the person you attacked can justifiably return the favor and you've locked yourself in an unnecessary conflict. Therefore, the principle concludes, the best course of action is to always wait/prepare and not attack first. It eliminates the chance of situation 3, the worst possible outcome (i.e. murdering innocent people).

It seems straightforward. Why don't more people hold to it? The trick is that you don't have to agree with the principle's weight. You may think the downside of situation 2 is greater, such as discounting the preparation ability due to budget constraints or political will. Then you would conclude that preemptive strikes are better than waiting. That's where a lot of foreign policy debates come from.