I have been mulling over what I consider to be a major issue with the non-principle. NAP says that it’s always immoral to take but what about the fact that sometimes it’s immoral not to give. How can it be immoral for one to take what it is immoral for another to keep?
If the definition of aggression, as it pertains to NAP, were broadened to include actions where someone sits by while another person is injured, knowing they could help with little or no risk to themselves, I think NAP would be a more viable basis for determining moral action. As it stands now, NAP grants the property owner the right to passively aggress.
For instance, imagine a property owner who chooses to sit idly by while someone begs to enter their home to escape a viscous wild animal. Are they not acting in self defense to break your window and use your property to save their life? If someone came to own all the food in a given region and claimed property rights permitted him to willfully allow others to starve, would it not be self defense take food by force? How can it be immoral for one to take what it is immoral for another to keep?
It cannot be assumed that there was no immoral action based on the contention that one did nothing. Mises said in Human Action, “Action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done.”
There is no such thing as “doing nothing”. Everything is action and all actions have consequences. NAP wants to be a universal code of ethics but fails to consider anything other than direct violence as an offense worthy of retribution.