It is morally acceptable to do anything that does not initiate force

It is morally acceptable to do anything that does not initiate force
Subjects
Libertarianism	Morality
Non-Violence Principle	Violence
Linking arguments
It is morally acceptable to view pornography It is morally acceptable to engage in oral sex It is morally acceptable to engage in same-sex sexual behavior It is morally acceptable to initiate force on innocent people to protect a larger number of people It is morally acceptable to use contraception Making investment decisions based on privileged information from corporate insiders victimizes people Outcomes that result from choices made in a free market are inherently morally right People should pursue their own self-interest Sin exists Societies should implement anarchism

Note: For the purposes of this argument, the term aggression refers to the initiation of force, or the use of fraud, coercion or the threat of force to compel others to behave in a particular manner.

Supporting arguments

Not initiating force means that no one can be forced to do anything against their will. People being allowed to make choices freely will produce optimum results for each individual. Can you supply this point with a source that proves it is earnest? Do it yourself or provide the link on the talk page.

Using force to compel behavior in others violates their right to control of their body. This is an inherent human right, and it is morally wrong to violate it. Can you supply this point with a source that proves it is earnest? Do it yourself or provide the link on the talk page.

Opposing arguments

Without the initiation of force, econonomic exploitation can occur, which results in negative outcomes for society and/or for the individuals involved. 

Without governments to use force and the threat of force to compel behavior, powerful economic entities can take actions which result in negative outcomes for society. Outcomes can improve with government action. 

• • Related argument: Outcomes that result from choices made in a free market are inherently morally right.

You can perform an immoral act against someone without using agression against him or his property by judiciously modifying his environment. At its worst you can commit murder by removing all sources of water within someone's reach for several days. Can you supply this point with a source that proves it is earnest? Do it yourself or provide the link on the talk page.