Since libertarians don’t often discuss the non-aggression principle (NAP), I figured I’d contribute to the conversation. The NAP purity argument holds real importance because, as an Agorist, consistency forms the core of what sets us apart from other ideologies. In 50 years, Agorism will likely remain much the same, while a JFK Democrat from back then would seem unrecognizable today.

Without consistency, movements always appear hypocritical eventually, much like Occupy Wall Street, which once railed against Big Pharma but recently and especially during covid supported it and wanted to make their products mandatory, or the Tea Party that solely elected Trump in 2016 on promises of debt reduction yet defends his massive spending with excuses like, “But Biden,” or “Obama.”

Principles lose their power if they’re not applied consistently, and history tends to expose them as foolish, and rightfully so. As a Chemist, Konkin grasped this deeply and broke it down to a science, noting that even if he wrote something inconsistent, Agorism itself stays true—and any flaws should be corrected to align with that truth. The same principle guides my words here.

A deep dive into edge cases and extreme scenarios is not just for debate, but to truly test the principle and uncover any hidden contradictions. 

Once a contradiction is found in philosophy, you must rethink your position. That’s why I stand by the consistent stance: no one is ever entitled to someone else’s property. It’s a dangerous slippery slope, where even the smallest concession can justify taxes or forced sharing, which runs counter to our values. You’re simply not entitled to other people’s stuff, end of story.

An Extreme Case

To be clear, I’m not justifying or endorsing NAP violations—they’re always wrong, and doing so means you’ve violated someone’s natural rights, even if you’re more popular and everyone sides with you. Still, many who claim they’d never break the principle don’t fully understand how difficult a reality that would be. I’ve faced life-or-death situations, and reflecting on my personal experiences, as well as some of these extreme NAP edge cases, takes me to some dark places. I can empathize with people in dire straits, even if I disagree with their choices; I get it, though unjustifiable, I can understand the reasoning in some of these cases.

Would I ever violate the NAP? I hope not, such as a car accident or something, and I’d never intend to. Let’s test the principle to its limits.

Consider this extreme case: Your plane crashes in a poverty stricken foreign land that’s not welcoming to outsiders. Discombobulated from the crash for a second, you come too quickly, as you smell and feel like you’re burning,  most of the passengers you see appear to be dead. You’re on fire covered in some flammable material, you’ve managed to escape the wreckage in a hurry, but outside, stop-drop-and-roll isn’t extinguishing the flames. It’s getting harder to breathe due to the smoke coming directly off your clothes. The pain and burning are overwhelming, clouding your thoughts, and you desperately don’t want to burn alive. Nearby, an elderly passerby carries two buckets of clean water and a freshly washed blanket, all destined for a grandchild suffering from cholera. They’ve put in significant effort to gather the water from far away to ensure that it’s from a clean source, especially given their age and responsibilities. The time loss and distance were difficult. Clean water is imperative for cholera.

 As the fire intensifies and your attempts to roll it out fail, you plead for help, but they refuse. 

In a final act of desperation, after exhausting every other option and against their explicit wishes, you strongly seize the buckets away from the elder to douse yourself and grab the blanket to smother the remaining flames as you cover yourself in it and roll on the ground.

 Let’s avoid moving the goalposts: this clearly qualifies as a NAP violation, with no consent given, force involved, and the passerby bearing no responsibility for your crisis. No one has a right to another’s property—that mindset puts us on par with statists—and I’m not defending the action here.

However, while it was undeniably wrong and demands substantial restitution, including compensation for time and damages, I can understand the human impulse behind it. Was it immoral? Absolutely. Can I empathize with the person during a situation like this and does it make sense? Yes.

Would I do the same? I’m honestly not sure—I’d have to be in that moment—but probably, given what I know about the agony of fire and the suffocation being covered in it brings. For those who smugly insist they’d choose to burn instead, try holding a lighter to your arm and count the seconds before instinct kicks in to stop it. It’s far easier said than endured.

I grasp this conversation’s depth better than most, having endured excruciating pain myself, including reconstructive foot surgery with cadaver bone and metal implants, where amputation was a serious option on the table. And that’s not even the life-threatening event I alluded to earlier, which I’d rather not revisit. 

No one should violate the NAP—why choose something you know you shouldn’t? Yet in a blaze, without justifying it, you’re faced with two grim “ought nots”: burning to death or taking without consent. Perfection isn’t human, and unauthorized taking remains wrong. But shaming people as impure for admitting they might falter in such extremes isn’t the best way to build the movement.

Consistency demands we affirm that the NAP should never be broken and must be avoided at all costs, while recognizing that for disputes, accidents, or rare edge cases like this, private courts can step in to enforce restitution and make victims whole, accounting for lost time and more. Gray areas and complexities will always arise.

If someone wealthy repeatedly violates the NAP simply because they can afford the fallout—that’s not true libertarianism—then escalating penalties become necessary to deter future incidents. At the same time, we must proceed carefully, as excessive punishment itself breaches the NAP. For instance, blowing away a child and his dog named Spot with a shotgun who accidentally steps onto your lawn while playing as they walk by, even with a no-trespassing sign nearby, constitutes aggression. Similarly, severing a hand over a stolen piece of candy crosses into NAP violation territory, and this aspect of proportionality doesn’t get enough attention.

In the end, it’s fully consistent to urge against NAP breaches while allowing that slips, property damage, or pollution can be resolved through private arbitration. But if my uncertainty about withstanding flames makes me “impure” in your eyes, then I’d rather not join your movement, as I have a visceral sense of that pain and other physical torments. Most who boast they’d burn first likely wouldn’t, except perhaps the rarest few. We shouldn’t label people as fake libertarians just because they’re honest about their limits in such scenarios, even while rejecting violations outright—that veers into overly exclusionary ground.

My Issue with Zulu

I had no prior knowledge of this individual before the NAP debate, and boasting about igniting a “liberty civil war” strikes me as somewhat misguided. That said, a genuine concern lingers. In his YouTube video “Anatomy of the Celebritarian,” a clip of Dave Smith appears that some interpret as implying violence toward The Pholosopher (and perhaps Jack V. Lloyd in related discussions). Yet the full context reveals it as purely hypothetical. During their December 2025 debate, 

Dave directly challenged Zulu on the editing, accusing him of trimming it to remove the conditional framing and make it sound like a genuine threat. Zulu countered that no deception occurred, that he’d covered the allegations in a separate response video, and that the complete version wouldn’t lead anyone to believe Dave advocated real harm. Even in the absence of malicious intent, presenting clips without adequate context can mislead viewers, and as the channel owner, accountability falls to him. To my knowledge, no further apology or correction has been added to the original video. While this doesn’t rise to a NAP violation, upholding strong ethical standards in how we present arguments is crucial for a movement built on reason—perhaps gentle social pressure could encourage better practices if patterns persist.

My Thoughts on Dave Smith

I truly appreciate Dave’s contributions to advancing the movement, as people like him often go underrecognized amid the unseen challenges they face. As the leading figure right now, he’s drawing fire from all sides. Though I don’t align with every view, overall, he’s delivered a net positive for liberty. Even so, certain topics warrant open discussion.

Gatekeeping

 The time has come for gatekeeping to refine and strengthen the movement, yet narrowing it down to a handful of “pure monks” and pushing others out will only breed infighting and diminish our numbers. Prioritizing whether someone would truly burn alive misses the broader point, though the discussion itself has value.

SEK3

 “Heed well, you who would be a paladin of Liberty: never initiate any act of violence, regardless of how likely a “libertarian” result may appear. To do so is to reduce yourself to a statistic. There are no exceptions to this rule. Either you are fundamentally consistent or not. A New Libertarian is fundamentally consistent, and one who is not fundamentally consistent is not a New Libertarian.”

 – Samuel Edward Konkin III 

This quote motivates me toward embracing the burn-to-death ideal, but as a human, I’m still uncertain if I could follow through, no matter my intentions. 

I’ll strive to live by principles as best I can, though that’s somewhat beside my current argument.

A Focus on the Bordertarians

However, real gatekeeping should target those who claim libertarian credentials while endorsing state deportations and socialist-style borders. If you’re advocating for expanded state power and control, while hoping to accomplish anything by voting, that contradicts the label entirely. Power granted to the state is rarely reclaimed.

We consistently urge focusing on root causes for every other issue, so why ignore it here? The core of the immigration problem lies in dismantling welfare systems, ending endless wars, and concluding the failed drug war, all of which have only amplified dependency, crime, and terrorism. Expanding the police state makes resisting it—even through peaceful Agorist methods—increasingly difficult. The state creates these messes, and trusting it for solutions is naive at best. Allowing government oversight of movement inevitably leads to dystopias like 15-minute cities. When the state “solves” problems people trust that they can solve more.

Moreover, their proposed fixes will spawn even more problems. Immigration serves as a convenient scapegoat to usher in a technocratic surveillance regime complete with CBDCs and digital IDs. ICE already collaborates closely with Palantir, leveraging its software for data analysis in workplace raids, border operations, and individual tracking, backed by years of contracts—including a recent $30 million deal for the AI-powered ImmigrationOS to accelerate deportations.

These government deals have enabled Palantir to expand its infrastructure, now extending to the IRS, where its Foundry software builds unified data platforms for modernizing tax systems. Under Trump, this is constructing both digital and physical prisons through border enhancements, guiding society toward total control under banners of freedom, safety, and America First.

Conclusion

Our libertarian movement is already too small and dismissed too easily, so purification efforts should center on the immigration debate. Engage Dave directly to sway him toward private property borders rather than socialist ones enforced by a militarized police state—debate him, persuade him, and urge his followers toward greater consistency. As it stands right now, neither one seems to have solutions to get to Ancapistan, Dave voting (can’t vote your way out of this), and Zulu, fracturing the movement to oblivion, creating a tiny remnant of purist Karens. MAGA is dead. Many people are disenfranchised with politics. 

Now is the perfect time to spread Agorism—push, and push hard. As Agorists, crafting solutions and taking direct action define our approach. In closing, remember that every shift toward liberty historically incorporated elements of Agorism, so if true freedom is your goal, we must begin there, no matter the path one is taking.