case and point
The “non-aggression” principle is a social contract.
When did the people born into society consent to “non-aggression”? When did they consent to property rights? You can consent to the concept of ‘non aggression’ without consenting to property because you view property as being violent.
I anticipated that objection, but I guess you had replied before I had a chance to save my post again. In my edit, I said that the non-aggression principle is “an enforceable moral obligation logically derived from the nature of Man (qua Man) living in a social context.”
There is no agreement to it. The non-aggression principle exists as a fact of reality whether one acknowledges it or not.
Whether property (which I suppose you to mean the ownership of property) is violent or not, what matter is whether the ownership of property is an act of aggression and against whom if no one owns (in a moral sense) the property in question.
