system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why has the non-aggression principle receive so little academic attention?

Although often cited by libertarians online, it seems like the non-aggression principle has received little scholarly attention. Outside of small circles, it appears that the 'nap' hasn't had much engagement and it's hard to find any academic critiques of it. Am I looking in the wrong places, or is this the case?
gpt
This has been asked quite a few times before, but the principal reason is that the non-aggression principle is *redundant*:

1. In order to know what counts as aggression, you need to have a theory of rights.
2. But if you already have a theory of rights, then you don't need an additional "non-aggression principle".

With a theory of rights, you already know everything you need to know about what you may or may not do.

It's actually quite telling that the NAP is mostly used in non-academic circles. Indeed, the way the NAP is wielded by non-academic libertarians reveals just how unaware non-academic libertarians can be of their own assumptions (which is to be expected among non-academic or lay audiences).  

Again, the NAP only has content given an underlying theory of rights. So, if someone frequently asserts the NAP, it must be because they already have a particular theory of rights in mind. However, *because* they keep focusing on the NAP, it's likely they are taking their theory of rights largely for granted. Otherwise, they'd just be discussing the rights themselves—which is precisely what academic political philosophers do!