"The Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP, is the belief that individuals should be free to act as they choose with the exception that they may not initiate force, or the threat of force, against another person or their property."


How does the Non-Aggression Principle apply in the following situations:

1) Animal abuse
Hypothetical:
My neighbor is torturing his pet chimpanzee. It appears to be done sadistically. He does this daily, in his front yard, and isn't willing to discuss the matter.
Should I physically intervene? Should the state? Is this initiation of force?
What if instead of a chimp, it's a cat? A mouse? A lobster? A snail? An earthworm? Mosquito? Imaginary pet?

2) Noise pollution
I think it's clear some level of noise should be tolerated, and that that level differs by location.
It seems equally clear that, above some level, noise is harmful and should not be tolerated.
Is there any clear point at which a line can be drawn?
What if my neighbor enjoys playing loud music, screams a lot, or obsessively mows his lawn?
With regards to the NAP, at what point is it right to use force to stop this?
Does using force to stop noise pollution constitute the initiation of force?


Thoughts on applying the NAP principle to gray areas in general? Links to good discussions of this area?

3) Babies free market

1) You should report it to law enforcement, who will investigate an allegation of animal abuse and take action as necessary to separate him from the animal and file charges
If its a mouse, lobster, snail, earthworm, mosquito or imaginary, nobody should care
2) You should file a noise complaint with law enforcement, who will show up and tell him to knock it off.

Individual liberties are only maximized when you recognize that the right to swing your fist stops at the other man's nose- unrestricted liberties for one is restricted liberties for another. The goal should be to optimize for the outcome with the most liberty for all, not necessarily the most liberty for one. And at least some degree of liberties are respected for non-humans and nature, not rising to the level given to people but worthy of protection.

He said libertarians and anarchists.