Issues with Natural Rights

I'm looking at Rothbard's natural rights ethic, and there are three things I'm concerned about:

1)  Given that there is no removal of life, liberty, or property; what about the morality of incest?

2)  Morality of bestiality?

3)  Given that we can act in self-defence, wouldn't this justify me, say, blowing up the HQ of the IRS?  Since the IRS is conducting theft against myself?

Fephisto:

1)  Given that there is no removal of life, liberty, or property; what about the morality of incest?

2)  Morality of bestiality?

3)  Given that we can act in self-defence, wouldn't this justify me, say, blowing up the HQ of the IRS?  Since the IRS is conducting theft against myself?

1. The reason there is a ban on incest is that it leads to a higher rate of birth defects.  If you have a recessive gene for a genetic disease, and you breed with relatives, then the disease is more likely to manifest.  For example, many purebred dogs have genetic diseases.

If two people want to consent and commit incest, that's none of your business.  Incest is genetically a bad idea.  In a free market, there's no welfare state to force you to take care of their sick children.

2. Animals don't have the same rights as people.  If someone wants to have sex with an animal and they do it in private, that's none of your business.  If you find out that someone has committed beastiality, you have the right to refuse to admit them onto your proprety or hang out with them.

3. Technically, the theft occurs when police break into your residence to kidnap you or seize your property.  It is at that point where it is most morally correct to defend yourself with violence.  However, defending yourself in such a circumstance is not practical.  The police have superior resources.

If there were no police enforcing their decrees, then IRS bureaucrats would be a bunch of people shuffling irrelevant paper all day.

Most State employees are not aware that they are participants in a massive crime.  Since they are mindless zombies, how can they be responsible for their actions?  If you object to cruelty to animals, then you should also object to cruelty to State bureaucrats.

Aggressive violence against random State employees is a violation of the non-aggression principle.  It's only morally correct to defend yourself against a specific State employee that has aggressed against you.

In practice, violence against State employees is a waste of time and unproductive.  It's more practical to pursue agorism, building wealth and concealing it from the State.

I've actually been the victim of State violence.  I wrote the experience off as a loss and moved on.  Am I justified hunting down and killing those who aggressed against me, or hiring someone else to collect compensation for me?  That's not practical.  If there were a mature free market court, I would pursue my claim there.

Much of Rothbard's work is only concerned with political philosophy (which he defines as the proper use of force in a society), rather than personal ethics.  Incest and bestiality, since they are not violations of the NAP, are therefore not discussed  He refers you to Henry Veatch and the Aristotelians for the foundations of a broader ethical system.