It must have been about a year ago when a gentleman describing himself as a ‘real socialist’ fetched up on the Libertarian Alliance Forum and threw himself headlong into stinging denunciations of the state and its coercive methods. He was delighted to be amongst those of what he believed to be a like mind. But he wasn’t just against government coercion, no. He was against all coercion which included the ‘tyranny’ of capitalism, commerce, money and property (which he regarded as theft).
Upon further prompting (and it didn’t take much) he advised that his goal was a pure society where all government, money, trade, property and personal gain had been abolished. Intrigued (and heartily amused by this stage) we asked him how he intended to prevent people from creating currencies, establishing property rights and trading as they please without coercion.
In response he was both affronted and bemused. Why couldn’t we understand that when all the above-mentioned iniquities had been abolished, a spontaneous order of cooperation would arise, self-interest would be dispensed with, and there will be no need for coercion because nobody will want things like property and money.
After the delivery of a few well aimed logic incendiaries, he disappeared taking his one-man crusade for utopia with him. He simply could not understand why people would want money or property in a world where everything was free. I daresay that he still has the hoots of our derisive laughter ringing in his head.
I am reminded of this gentleman and his utopian vision because of something posted by one of our commentators recently:
“As I’ve mentioned before, the US Libertarian Party has a concept called the non-aggression principle which states that you will not initiate force, or advocate its initiation. Anyone who joins the LP signs a statement saying that they will abide by that.”
On the face of it, the non-aggression principle (NAP) sounds like a very noble and enlightened thing. Indeed, it is a principle to which I once subscribed myself. However, further reflection (and not just recent events or by way of any reference to the possible impending assault on Iraq) has led me to quite a different opinion. The proponents of the NAP argue that the NAP is not the same as pacifism because while the NAP forbids the initiation of force it nonetheless permits the use of force in self-defence. Pacifism eschews all use of force. However, upon critical examination the practical effects of abiding by the NAP may be indistinguishable from the practical effects of pacifism.
To explain, assume there are just two parties, A and B. Party A subscribes to the NAP but Party B (for whatever reason) refuses to. Party A can try to persuade Party B to subscribe to the NAP but if that proves unsuccessful then there is nothing that Party A can do. Party A certainly cannot force Party B to comply as that would constitute a breach of the NAP to which Party A has subscribed.
But, more than this, Party B has, in effect, reserved the right to initiate force at some unspecified point in the future. Therefore, and to all intents and purposes, a refusal to comply with the NAP is, of itself, a declaration of aggressive intent. Party A is now dwelling under a Damoclean sword for they have to watch Party B like a hawk lest Party B ever exercise its option.
Of course, Party A is still entitled to defend itself with as much force as it can muster but it is at a crucial strategic disadvantage because Party A can only defend while Party B has the option of both attacking and defending. Party B can choose when, where and how to attack or engage in a series of attacks and Party A can only try to anticipate and react accordingly.
Of course, proponents of NAP would argue that, once Party B attacks Party A, then the gloves are off and Party A can legitimately move to obliterate Party B completely. But that assumes that Party B’s first strike does not prove to be a decisive one (or a nuclear one).
In short, for as long as Party B rejects the NAP, Party A is under a death threat.
Now I daresay that proponents of the NAP would argue that there would be no Party Bs if everyone agreed to subscribe to the NAP. This is true. But it would require everybody (and I mean everybody) in the whole world agreed to abide by the principle. This global hegemon would also have to be achieved by dint of peaceful persuasion alone since compliance cannot be forced and that requires an act of proselytisation that has proved to be beyond the power of any religion ever conceived. If this is not achieved than you are left with a world divided into Party A’s and Party B’s (until such time as the Party A’s no longer exist).
Further, even if this Herculean task of persuading everyone in the world to subscribe to the NAP were to prove successful somehow, there is nothing to stop any or all subscribers abrogating or resigning from the principle at a later date. The only way to counter this would be for the remaining subscribers to announce that they will regard any non-compliance with the NAP as, of itself, an initiation of force and then respond accordingly (in self-defence of course). So the NAP would require a global policeman telling everybody to play nicely or face the consequences. Doesn’t that sound remarkably similar to what the US-led coalition is doing right now with Iraq?
I regret to say that, any way you stack it up, the NAP doesn’t hold water. At best, it is a futile posture and, at worst, it is a recipe for bringing about the very state of bloody global conflict that it’s proponents claim to wish to avoid.
But let it not be said that I have misrepresented the NAP’ers on their full position for I have read many a screed by many a libertarian that asserted the view that, once government control and nation states had been dispensed with, an orderly, peaceful world of trading and voluntarism would spontaneously arise and therefore no-one will initiate force because there will be no need for aggression. And, in this, they remind me greatly of our ‘real socialist’ friend referred to above. He earnestly believed that, once the apparatus of capitalism had been removed, an orderly, peaceful world of mutual cooperation would spontaneously arise and therefore there will be no need for money or property. These are mirror beliefs; two sides of the same coin but both reflective of the semi-mystical belief that, given the right circumstances, the lion will indeed lie down with the lamb. If it ever did, it would no longer be a lion. The requirement of both the libertarian NAP proponent and the messianic socialist is not a change in policy but a radical re-engineering of human nature itself.
If our above-mentioned commentator is correct and the NAP is something to which members of the US Libertarian Party are required to subscribe to, then that is a matter of great regret given their inspiring work in so many other fields. Nevertheless, by electing to chain themselves to this untenable, utopian rock they have guaranteed their irrelevance, and maybe even extinction, as a serious political force.
Can’t we all just be Victorian gentlemen and ascribe to it? 🙂
Seems to me David is moving a little closer to Lenin’s understanding of the world while disagreeing with his solution to the dilemma.
Lenin would have called your ‘real socialist’ friend an anarchist. He would have agreed that a socialist future (or a future where everyone subscribed to NAP) was possible, but claimed that “proletarian dictatorship” was a necessary bridge from here to there.
That is why he puts such emphasis on the state “whithering away” in State and Revolution.
Lenin thought that it was naive to believe that the NAP could hold in a society where systematic conflicts of interest persisted. He claimed that the institutionalisation of violence in the State was an expression of conflicts of interest between classes, and that it could only be abolished along with class division.
If David is claiming that conflicts of interest cannot be abolished because they are products of human nature, then of course he will think that Lenin’s project is doomed to end in tyranny rather than liberation. But I think he will agree with Lenin that the NAP or the voluntary abolition of the State (the same thing, no?) is a utopian proposal.
As Hobbes said, “Covenants without the sword are mere words.” A brutal, but inescapable truth.
Sorry, I don’t buy this logic, though you may be right that Party A has to keep a close eye on all the Party Bs out there. I just see the NAP as a declaration of intent to follow something like the tit-for-tat strategy in life. That is, I pledge to be nice to you, until you screw me over, at which time I get nasty. Tit-for-tat and a few closely related strategies are known to be pretty successful in encouraging cooperation.
Perhaps this is the first time I’ve disagreed with anything David has written. I won’t say he’s misrepresented the NAP, but I will say my interpretation of it is a little different. I’m no utopianist, and I do not think the NAP precludes a military preemptive strike. If an attack from an enemy nation (Iraq?) is imminent there’s no reason to wait for that attack to begin. Perhaps other NAP subscribers disagree with me. But if I’m right, then there’s no military disadvantage to binding oneself to the NAP.
I believe the U.S. Libertarian Party’s requirement that one eschew advocacy of the initiation of force in writing is an attempt to keep the domestic law enforcement agencies from designating the organization as a subversive revolutionary party. They are asserting thereby that they wish to promote their aims through legal, electoral means, rather than violent overthrow of the government. I’m not sure they mean to indicate this to be the basis of their foreign policy. That’s the impression I get from reading their website.
Eve M,
Tit-for-tat may do well in simple game theory simulations, but revenge may not have all that much to do with actual morality.
Walter,
I agree that sane NAP-supporters can and should support pre-emptive strikes. They should also support the current US government — this institution must evolve gradually to become better. But many (most?) NAP-supporters do not understand this, and the NAP seems to be an impediment to having a rational worldview.
In response to Eve M,
the problem with tit-for-tat in the modern world is the size of the, ahem, tits – especially if they’re controlled by some shadowy non-traditional entity. the tit could be catostrophic, and we might not even know who to tat. makes you long for the good ol’ days of the cold war, doesn’t it?
Even if just, the right side often wins through a mixture of force and genuine respect, not just pure force.
Respect is partly won by how you treat people who are at your mercy (being magnanimous in victory, as Churchill said) and that can include non-combatants on your own side. Attacking Iraq can be totally the right thing to do, but treating pacificists who peacefully oppose your decision equally – or almost equally – peacefully can be very worthwhile… even measured in simple terms of winning that conflict by winning more allies, showing yourself to be as broadminded and tolerant as is practical.
Freedom to disagree with the government in many ways is one of the reasons many think Hussein is worth fighting.
EVe M. is right. The NAP is only absurd if you take it absurdly literally. I subscribe to the NAP in the ordinary commonsense meaning of the words. If I see a bad guy raising his arm to strike it won’t bother me to strike first if I can. I won’t have been first to aggress, merely first to strike.
One of the things that makes me a libertarian is that I regard it as simply sticking to the moral precepts that hold in ordinary life. Usually I have to argue with non-libertarians that there is no reason not to stick to the ordinary rules of morality just because one is working on a larger scale. Today I am arguing with a libertarian (that’s you, David) that when you scale up a principle the constraints of common sense are scaled up with it. That’s not a problem. It does not violate the principle.
PS I liked Mark G’s comment, too.
EVe M. is right. The NAP is only absurd if you take it absurdly literally. I subscribe to the NAP in the ordinary commonsense meaning of the words. If I see a bad guy raising his arm to strike it won’t bother me to strike first if I can. I won’t have been first to aggress, merely first to strike.
One of the things that makes me a libertarian is that I regard it as simply sticking to the moral precepts that hold in ordinary life. Usually I have to argue with non-libertarians that there is no reason not to stick to the ordinary rules of morality just because one is working on a larger scale. Today I am arguing with a libertarian (that’s you, David) that when you scale up a principle the constraints of common sense are scaled up with it. That’s not a problem. It does not violate the principle.
PS I liked Mark G’s comment, too.
I second Natalie’s comments.
I’d also like to point out that it’s not necessary to speculate on the results of a country applying the non-agression principle to international affairs. Switzerland has provided a perfectly good real-world example for centuries.
The NAP idea originates in the notion that it is wrong to attack other people or nations in order to gain control over them and build an empire. The NAP pledge says: we renounce the option of empire building. This is reasonable.
I don’t think the LP is agains self defence in principle, or against *any* preemptive war for self defence purposes.
So the problem is not with the principle of NAP, but with it’s very dubious application in this particular case (Iraq), by one wing or group of the LP.
With the emphasis on anti-utopianism and thinking the worst of other parties (countries) who are not to be trusted, David is showing some decidedly conservative roots with distinctive libertarian highlights.
Not that I disagree with the argument.
Natalie-
The NAP is there for a reason – it is a principle. Modern democracy has made principle obselete and is simply the law of the jungle.
I think you are somewhat misinterpreting the NAP. Aggression begins with the threat of agression. We can all debate about just what exactly is a threat, but when someone holds a gun to your head, he has threated, and therefore, initiated force against you. Even if he never fires a shot, your will is no longer yours. You are under his control. Thus, you are completely just in responding with force yourself.
Thus, by striking, you are responding to aggression in the form of a threat of a raised fist. That is well within bounds of the NAP.
If Government B starts brutalizing the citizens of Country C (or its own citizens), and outsiders from Country A show up to defend them, have the volunteers from Country A violated the NAP?
No. This is analogous to an LP member wasting an armed robber who is attacking some other citizen.
The NAP becomes involved when Government A uses force on the citizens of Country A to pay for military actions outside A’s jurisdiction not involving the defense of A. The NAP also becomes involved when citizens of Country B not involved in the brutality of Government B become “collateral damage” on a large scale.
Since Saddam’s government quite clearly initiates force against innocent civilians, the NAP doesn’t restrain any of us as individuals from working towards his elimination. The NAP does restrain us from using force to compel the assistance of our fellow citizens (or other neutral parties) in the name of wasting Saddam.
We need to remember that the NAP is a guiding principle, not the fundamental moral axiom. It has proven useful in many situations and should not be discarded lightly, but the ultimate libertarian goal is MAXIMIZING FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE. Things like property, due process, NAP, etc. are useful tools for achieving this end, not ends in themselves.
There are two distinct issues involved: one is liberation – freeing oppresed people from tyrants.
The other is protecting your own country and it’s vital interests from external menaces.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false assest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
So what exactly are you trying to say Bill P?
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
Interesting point David. I’ve recently been thinking in terms of Liberty for Libertarians – that is, not worrying about all the statists out there and setting things up so that Libertarians defend other libertarians, so that coervices gradually learn that libertarians (being free) are not people to get involved with. This particularly applies to the government and their police – although they may inflict taxes, false law, false arrest and weapon restrictions on their own people – that is, people who accept the authority of the state or are criminals – but they can learn that it is dangerous and pointless for them to do the same to libertarians. Of course this stratergy would requre a great deal of muatual defensive assistance between different libertarians in different areas. What I like about this stratergy is that it is possible to do without having to convince very large numbers of people of the virtues of liberty & sovereign individualism, at the same time as attracting liberty-minded people into the movement by offering them something back instead of talk – actual protection and exemption from the state.
I have been an LP member on and off since the late 1970s, and agree in part with Brett’s point that the NAP is to stave off other people coming to the erroneous conclusion that we advocate initiating violent, non-legal means of changing the government. It also makes the point to members and those considering membership. Given that some minority of those are quite angry people that is probably a decent idea.
PS: Is there some way to delete the numerous duplicate postings by Bill P?
The real criticism I have always had of the NAP though is that it is meaningless. From a libertarian perspective, it is nearly impossible for a libertarian to initiate force or the threat of force against government for the simple fact that government itself has already done so. Law is a threat of force. Every law: that is what law is.
Law is a promise by the government to initiate any level of force whatsoever, including potentially deadly force, in order to make the “criminal” submit. Most people will accept this as good and proper in many cases, such as prohibitions of murder and rape and so on.
But selling pornography? Blaspheming? Possession of alcohol? Selling or buying sexual services? The penalty for breaking such “victimless crime” laws is in most countries less than death, but governments will, however reluctantly, use deadly force if necessary to compell obedience by any who resist arrest or incarceration.
If you are arrested for possession of alcohol or marijuana the government is not merely threatening force, it is initiating it. I have never heard it discussed whethor the LP believes that pot smokers and prostitutes have a right to use force for self defence. The gays at the Stonewall riot, not libertarians so far as I know, answered “Yes.”
Any thoughts?
Injustice, and initial aggression, are usually fairly clear.
Ideal justice and self-defense, however, are a “grey” area.
Insofar as the NAP is a principle restricting aggressive force, it should properly be contrasted with other principles.
Like, any threat, or perceived threat, is subject to pre-emptive forceful self-defence.
And of course there is the difficulty of “humans” and “countries” doing things. Unlike Vietnam, the Iraq war will be fought by volunteers.
It will be paid for by taxes — but so many things are paid for by taxes…
If taxpayers could direct their tax dollars to any of the various current gov’t Departments (with Secretaries), and a huge number of folks wrote on their 10-40s that they wanted their taxes going to Defense, would such a tax/ defense system solve the NAP issue? It would certainly reduce it.
But “threat” is a grey area. Or is that gray?
Tom Grey (I changed my name for this reason)