Non-aggression, advocates individual restraint towards initiatory force, fraud or coercion, except in defense of life, liberty, or property. The ideology of “might makes right” disposes of the idea of human equality, and of those who are weaker, are lesser, and “not deserving”. This concept literally dehumanizes any who are not up to the individual subjective standards. Allowing for the justification of subjugation. This is the basis of authoritarianism, and generally, the onus belonging to all governments since the inception of the horrible idea.
“Might makes right” is the road to tyranny, the ability to do something, with justification to use whatever means necessary, even with personal loss, to obtain an end. (This thinking, “because I can”, does not acknowledge others right to existence, and in such if others do not have the right to life, then the individual that continues to use coercion, force, or fraud as a means within society, will be subjected to the same means from others.) Government monopolizes the justification for preemptive coercion, fraud, or force, decided by privileged humans — also known as “slavery by representation”; being “represented”, one must allow another the justification to infringe upon their individual rights in exchange for “order”, or control.
Non-aggression is the idea that “initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc) and is forbidden; nothing else is.”
~SEK III NLM
The economic calculation issue within initiatory force, fraud or coercion, betrays that it is a loss equal to the lives/resources destroyed in acquisition, and any expenditure of resources in the acquisition. One can surely surmise that the resource loss would be a net loss as the above statement did not reflect the time-prior loss to the planning of use of resources in the forcible acquisition(and subsequent resource usage in the planning of the use of the resources).
Contrast this with the benefits of trade, even with one’s enemy positive trade still will occur as a voluntary mutual exchange(or both individuals would still see profitable outcomes or the trade would not occur), or another option, the social (business and personal) ostracism (refusal to interact, and the loss of reputation from the reported injustice). Barring trade from a particular source also results in a loss of the resources they had access to. Shrinking the resource acquirable pool and raising internal costs.
Prior to meeting their inevitable fate they create demand within a sector of the market called the red market, where immorality is traded for profit. Death is everyone’s fate, but in justifying the preemptive use of force, they almost inevitably speed up the fated instances in society. This puts economic pressure to increase the value of the sanctity of life, by providing for defensive means (it can be used for offensive means, but that is the option of the individual making the subjective determinations to use it in that way). Its existence is not proof that it will be used in that way only that there is the option to do so. The incentive to misuse it increases as society fears for their individual survival, due to this heinous belief.
Otherwise, they not only economically work to reduce the overall useful resources on the planet, but they put the whole of society at risk with delusional collectivized justification of preemptive coercion, fraud, and force as means to organize it. This makes no sense. If we want peace, and economically the value is there, (increased trade) then the only problem may be the personal value we place on non-aggression to determine how we acquire, use, reuse, dispose, or trade resources with other beings on this planet.
Refusal to acquire a desirable skill and opting instead for the “might makes right” philosophy, one resigns oneself to live by the sword and die by the same. Something a “civilized society” ought, as a whole, to find repugnant. The resulting incentive moves people away from red (murder, theft, rape, war, taxation, extortion, caging) market sales and back into the black (illegal), gray (questionable legality), and white (legal). People would still be free, mind you, but others would definitively be less inclined to maximize their trade with them.