No matter what you may hear to the contrary—generally from those individuals who wish to derive some benefit from being called libertarian, but who can't (or won't) make the cut ethically or politically—the one thing that sets real libertarians apart from other people is their strict adherence to a "Zero Aggression Principle"... [More]
L. Neil Smith presents an initial chapter in a larger endeavor.
40 comments:
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else."
BS! I stinking hate these pacifist tools who call themselves Libertarians. The original American Libertarians (the founding Fathers) had no qualms with initiating force against the British, Hessians and indians when they deemed necessary. These "surrender monkeys in Libertarian clothing" are usually the ones screaming about opening the borders and "letting everyone be free".
They make me sick.
Open your mind a little, Lee.
"A libertarian does not initiate force."
Okay, so before a libertarian responds with force, force must be used first against him/her.
What is force?
Have you tried *not* sending the IRS the money they demand for a year? Have you any idea how that would play out? (If not, just search for information on Ed and Elaine Brown.)
Is not robbery under threat of force still force?
That's my view. Other views of mine liken those in power to simply the largest street gang out there, and circumstances dictate that, though justified, overt self-defense measures aren't the best course of action at this time.
I see where the definition confuses. My read is the British and Hessians had initiated the force and incapacitating them was consistent with these principles until such time as the threat was defused. Wars aren't won by battles, and until your attacker has been stopped, you keep striking blows. Once the peace was established, it would again become immoral to attack them without requisite initiation of force provocation.
I don't see this being carte blanche to let your enemies prepare to attack you and you need to wait until they do to respond. If I know someone is going to attack me, I have every right to preempt him. If I don't know, my course is to be prepared in the best way I can to deter aggression.
Is it perfect and does it cover every possibility? Show me one thing devised by man that fits that bill.
"Okay, so before a libertarian responds with force, force must be used first against him/her."
That statement is BS!
Let me give you an example- you live in the country and have a neighbor constantly lets his pit-bulls out get into your property. You warm him repeatedly not to do that but he ignores you and continues. A Surrender-monkey's options are: let him get away with it or call in someone else to do protect you (e.g. the police).
Now letting him get away with it isn't a good answer and calling in someone to use force on your behalf isn't very Libertarian.
Now, the correct Libertarian answer is to shoot the damned dogs when they come on your property.
Blanket statements like "Real Libertarians don't initiate force" is stupid and wrong. Real Surrender-Monkeys may not initiate force but real Libertarians sometimes do when necessary.
As for your IRS comment- What? that didn't make sense?
Actually read what L. Neil is saying.
Propose that issue to L. Neil and ask him what the solution is - he'd say "Shoot the dog."
"Initiation of aggression" is defined as the employment of force or the threat of force in a formerly peaceful situation. In other words, I can't walk up to you and say "give me the money or I shoot." If you do that to me, I have every right to use retaliatory force.
It's the difference between initiation and retaliation. I can't walk up to somebody who has never tried to attack me or threatened to attack me, and point a gun at him. If somebody does not show the same respect with regard to me or my property, he isn't so lucky.
Calling L. Neil Smith a pacifist won't be accurate until Hell freezes over.
Read the essays at lneilsmith.org and then talk, it'll make you more informed.
John, That is not what it said-
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. "
Sometimes, even Libertarians need to initiate force, genocides happening in other countries is a good example or uncontrolled crime spilling across borders.
You can't make blanket statements like "If you initiate force, you're not a real Libertarian". Well, I take that back, you can make statements like that but you would be an idiot.
"Government is force."
who said it, lee?
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
George Washington, 1797.
sucks to admit to yourself that being a voter or a party republican means you're a statist just like the "liberals," doesn't it?
"calling in someone to use force on your behalf isn't very Libertarian."
what's the matter? you don't like the division of labor? it's your property.
libertarians don't initiate force, they initiate their response.
I'm sensing output producing more heat than light.
Please adjust accordingly.
Thank you.
"Lee Enfield" wrote:
> Sometimes, even Libertarians need to initiate force, genocides happening in other countries is a good example or uncontrolled crime spilling across borders.
Could you please explain how you arrived at the conclusion that "genocides" and "uncontrolled crime" don't qualify as "initiation of force"?
Mark Odell
Without having actually read the whole thing (I'm on my lunch break, I'll read it after work), it appears the main bone of contention is his use of the word "initiate." I think he means initiate in the sense of "begin the use of." Meaning that a libertarian would never be the first to use force, but using force in response to the use of force by someone else is acceptable. I also think he's using a broad definition of "force." Don't forget, to many the threat of physical/monetary/legal/etc. force is, in and of itself, the use of force.
Not a "surrender monkey" philosophy at all.
Riposte3 is much closer to the truth - thank you for helping to clarify.
As is Mr. Odell.
He's just saying that a Libertarian would never be the FIRST to use force. He is not saying that it is wrong to use force.
A genocide is certainly an example of "initiation of force" or "aggression." It would be perfectly acceptable to use retaliatory force to stop the aggression.
A libertarian never aggresses, only defends. No libertarian ever starts a fight by violating another person's rights to life, liberty or property. A libertarian would happily END a fight on the behalf of those rights, however.
Do you see the difference? L. Neil is not saying that you shouldn't defend yourself, your family, your rights, etc. He's saying that it's wrong to infringe upon another's equal rights.
It is wrong to threaten to infringe upon the absolute, unalienable rights of people to live, to own and keep property of all varieties, and to behave in whatever way they wish so long as they do not in any way prevent others from doing the same.
Conversely, it is RIGHT to defend these selfsame rights wherever they are threatened.
No libertarian would initiate force in an otherwise peaceful setting. NO libertarian would say "You're not allowed to sell that without giving me some of the money, or else I'll shoot you" (sales taxes) for example. No libertarian would say "That gun's illegal, give it to me or I'll shoot you" (gun laws). No libertarian would say "Do x, y, or z, or I'll shoot you," or say "Forget about it, I'm just going to shoot you anyway."
A libertarian would be eager to say "If you threaten to shoot me again, I'm going to cut off your head and shove it up your ass, then I'm gonna string your body up as an example."
I would know. I'm a libertarian! :-)
Jon - what? What in the heck are you talking about?
As for the rest of you:
GENOCIDE- If a genocide is happening in Europe, American Libertarians aren't subjected to 'aggression' or 'instigation of force' and by your arguments, a good Libertarian will stay out of it, because it's not his business. I say that you're not a Libertarian, you're an isolationist and a crumby person.
A genocide is certainly an example of "initiation of force" or "aggression." It would be perfectly acceptable to use retaliatory force to stop the aggression.
It's not happening to you or in your country, how are you under the "Initiation of Force" or "Aggression"?
Crime Spilling Over - A drive-by shooting happens and an innocent get killed by accident. The gangs didn't ATTACK the innocent, the death was an accidental by-product but, a good Libertarian will step in, even though he wasn't the object of an 'Instigation of Force" or "aggression"* and instigate force against the gangs even though he weren't attacked.
You guys are still arguing that things are black & white which we all know is 99.9999% not the case.
*NOTE: Before you claim that an accidental shooting in a drive-by is aggression, it no more of an attack, application of force and/or aggressive than someone who who dies in a auto-accident.
I know L. Neil (online, anyway), and he is NOT a pacifist. He wouldn't initiate force, but I wouldn't count on his response, if you attacked him, to leave you healthy and happy.
I don't think he would have any problem initiating force against a non-human (such as the dangerous, tresspassing dogs in Lee's example) at all. After all, hunting is initiating force against a non-human creature. No, it is only in human interactions that it is always wrong to initiate force.
In your "drive-by shooting example, the shooter is trying to harm someone. The simple fact that he initiates force against the wrong person (in his mind) does not make him innocent. In fact, even if no one was hit, shooting in the direction of innocent people is STILL initiating force. Remember to KNOW what is beyond your target.
Why must the initiated force be directed at YOU before you respond? If I see an innocent person held at gunpoint, and I kill the bad guy with a headshot, I have not initiated force. I simply helped an innocent person who needed it.
The Zero Aggression Principle works everytime, in REAL life, for ME. I know what I am talking about. I am a libertarian.
My last comment because I'm tired-
You guys are arguing an absolute.
Dance all you want to with the meaning of 'instigation', 'force' and 'aggression' and you're still wrong if you argue an absolute.
Nothing in life is absolute except death.
There always have been, and always will be, absolutes. Even your argument against absolutes takes the form of an absolute.
Kent:
As a minarchist, I think I can take this one up effectively:
Voting is an initiation of the use of force. The majority votes to force it's legislated will upon the minority.
About the only thing a ZAP follower can vote on is to vote against aggressive new measures like tax levies, new seat belt laws, etc.
If they vote for an actual candidate, they are electing a man who now has the power to legislate, and initiate force against everyone. Voting is essentially an act of violence ... and one initiated without any first aggression by others.
So ... how exactly can an absolute follower of ZAP run as or vote for a serious candidate?
The operative word there is "serious". ;)
Gotcha ... so, if the ZAP folks have there way, the LP will never elect anyone unless they promise to be purely protest candidates, who will, at best, act as if none-of-the-above are elected.
The LP is a political party. Political parties exist to elect candidates.
So, exactly why should libertarians who are interested in using the electoral process to promote liberty ever listen to El Neil's ZAP purity rant?
If his sole intention is to sabotage LP efforts, then they should seriously consider booting him.
I don't think the LP has anything to do with libertarians, do you?
There are presuppositions in this formulation of (1) freedom of action, (2) full information and attention, and (3) clear meaning for the word "aggression".
In a world where cats can be assumed to be spherical, the ZAP works. In most of the world, cats are not very spherical.
The ZAP assumes perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational actors. Good luck with that--and I mean it as sympathetically as I can.
"The ZAP assumes perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational actors."
Hardly. That's the good thing about it. It doesn require the bad guys to cooperate in order to work very well in the real world.
John Higgins said: Calling L. Neil Smith a pacifist won't be accurate until Hell freezes over.
L. Neil Smith is a pacifist, because there's no allowance in his worldview for just war. Ask him about a situation where the minimum effective retaliatory force is likely to get innocent third parties hurt, such as the shots exchanged on Concord green -- he will not address the question.
War is the situation where more selective and desirable forms of due process have broken down irretrievably. It happens from time to time. A proper libertarian philosophy needs to address just war, rather than pretending it never should happen.
Kent McManigal said...
I don't think the LP has anything to do with libertarians, do you?
Then why the frak are the ZAP crowd even involved in the party?
People are there to electioneer ... that is the very definition of what a political party does.
You avoided the question Kent ... I'll ask it again:
So, exactly why should LP members who are interested in using the electoral process to promote liberty ever listen to El Neil's ZAP purity rant?
Seriously, if all the ZAP crowd wants is to sabotage any chance of the LP winning an election, then why shouldn't serious LP members run you out on a figurative rail?
kbarrett- I didn't realize you were serious when you asked the question. Sorry about that.
The LP was supposed to be the "party of principle". If you abandon the principle, what is left?
I also know that L. Neil sees voting as a self-defensive act; not an initiation of force. Violent, yes, but a response to the force initiated by the state and its "laws".
You point out that once elected, a politician can pass "laws" that initiate force against everyone. I agree. Everyone has the power to initiate force, just as a politician has the power to pass more "laws" and thereby initiate force. A principled ZAP-adhering candidate could use his position to remove state control instead of implementing it.
I know that some who love the state would cry that they were being freed against their will (their "safety nets" are being taken away) or something, but they are free to continue to pretend the same old "laws" constrain them as before. They simply can't force that on others in a free society.
Once again, I am sorry for angering you with my flippant answers before. I guess I just don't take politics seriously enough.
So then ... he is willing to compromise his ZAP enough to participate in that mass act of aggression called voting?
I detect a bit of hypocrisy here, I guess.
When you vote, you are implicitly sanctioning voting itself, and opposing candidates that win ... and will initiate the use of force.
As a minarchist, I have no problems with voting, per se ... but I am amused when a ZAP adherent deliberately gets involved in a political party.
I rationalize voting as an act of defensive aggression. As long as the greater world can initiate and impact me and mine with it, it's the only chair in that bar fight available for me to pick up and wield.
Interesting, this schism--I'm picking up a parallel to the "Threeper/Prag" divide:
LPers vs ZAPs...
Self defense IS (or can be)violent, but it is not an act of aggression since it is a response to aggression.
Aggression = initiated force = "starting it" or "throwing the first punch.
Self defense = reacting to aggression = responding with force = stopping the attack by means of violence if necessary.
Pacifists believe that violence is never right, even as a response to violence. I believe that violence is often the proper response to violence, and is usually the only way to stop it.
Since voting can theoretically be used to stop agression by the state ("laws" and such), it is not an act of aggression as long as you do not vote for someone who is promising new "laws", but only promises to eliminate some of the law pollution that already exists. Of course, since I think all politicians are lying if they promise that, I wouldn't vote for any of them personally.
I chuckle when those online polls put me far into libertarian territory. I'm firmly on the right side, as far statist as is allowed by the laws which created our Republic.
As I've said before, I'm a law-and-order kinda guy. I can think of examples--from disturbing the peace to murder--where some stranger (including me) may be required to fill the role of initiator, because the injured party is indisposed.
It gets awfully complicated to keep a genealogy of every argument between parties, which is probably the reason mankind invented courts of law. Would a jury be able to perform its duty without violating the ZAP? Does the answer assume the honesty of all parties involved?
Are there universally understood indicators of the initiation of force? Does your answer take into account that some people understand the display of a weapon to be an act of aggression, no matter the context?
Either it is immaculate, or I am misunderstanding the chapter.
(None of this, however, should be taken as a broad rejection of Mr. Smith's writing.)
TJP-
"I'm a law-and-order kinda guy. I can think of examples--from disturbing the peace to murder--where some stranger (including me) may be required to fill the role of initiator, because the injured party is indisposed."
With "disturbing the peace" there is no "injured party". With actual aggression, if the injured party is indisposed, you would not be initiating force if you step in for the victim.
"Are there universally understood indicators of the initiation of force?"
Yes. "Force" is the exertion of physical power, or, I would say, the credible threat to use such. "Initiate" means to begin or originate. So, an "initiation of force" is beginning an exertion of physical power, or a credible threat to do so.
"Does your answer take into account that some people understand the display of a weapon to be an act of aggression, no matter the context?"
Those people are wrong. Seeing a weapon does not constitute a credible threat to exert physical power. You can't worry about the people who simply want to be in a knot about everything. There is no right to not be offended.
If you are seriously interested, I suggest you check out The On Line Freedom Academy.
There certainly are injured parties with a disturbance of the peace. Example: my former neighbor, who was in the habit of opening his windows and blasting metal at full volume at 11:30 pm, while his baby bawled its eyes out for hours.
His act wasn't an initiation of force meant specifically for me, but it was more than merely offensive when I couldn't get sleep for work, and couldn't close my windows in July.
The problem is that society contains a minority of "wrong" people, and no philosophy is going to change that fact. There is a migration, then, from a standard of initiation of force on individuals (difficult to prove if both parties are dishonest) to initiation of force against laws, (which is much easier to prove because laws can be crafted for such purposes, and are indifferent to the parties involved.)
I don't think that laws are going to fix everything, and I do acknowledge that they will accumulate to the point of being repressive. But that happens because stupid people can't fathom simply tossing out the rubbish and starting over.
Kent:
With "disturbing the peace" there is no "injured party".
Bull.
I lived in a neighborhood where trashy gangsta-looking neighbors moved in. I owned. They rented. They'd hold parties blasting obscene rap loudly--with all kinds of sexual, racist and violent lyrics my kids shouldn't have been subjected to--but their kids did, which helps explain how they turn out that way. Not to mention the noisy vulgarity of the revelers. They had no right to impose this on us, particularly in the late hours when everyone else was trying to sleep because WE worked. And trying to talk to them about being good neighbors would meet with menacing attitude bordering on threat. Not something to take lightly when their scary friends know where you live.
Oh, and their landlord didn't give a damn as long as he was getting his money--much of it subsidized.
As for moving to a better neighborhood, I did. But not all have that option, particularly with the way home prices have now tanked. And it wasn't a slum anyway--look up median home prices in Redondo Beach if you doubt that.
How did you try to solve your problems with your neighbor?
I told you. By talking with them. That didn't stop anything. Leaving my choices to call the cops--right after they knew I'd complained to them--or enduring it.
The third choice would have required initiation of counterforce, and I opted not to escalate.
So on future abuses, I wouldn't approach them any more and just called in a disturbing the peace complaint to let the "Only Ones" handle it, since they'd destroy my life if I did.
I didn't like it, but my options were limited both by practicality and law, so "any chair in a bar fight" won the day.
Sorry, David, my question was directed at TJP. I guess you posted while I was writing.
Still "initiation of counterforce" is not "initiation of force", but self defense. Such is definately within the ZAP.
If the bad neighbors realized you were the one who had called the cops, don't you think you would have been subject to revenge just as surely as if you had "taken care of it" yourself? I realize that you were protecting yourself from falling victim to the state by your actions, but did it really change what your bad neighbors could have done?
Maybe I was wrong, but I still think "offended" or "annoyed" is different from "injured". I think there is ALWAYS a way to deal with things that does not involve initiating force. Just as what you did.
Kent:
I was not the only neighbor, so many of us were telling them to keep it down and calling the cops when they didn't. My method was verbal, but I'm sure the sweet little old ladies wrote notes. Eventually the Noisemakersons could no longer afford the house, so they left.
This is just one of those situations where having an awake and alert police officer beats getting out of bed in the middle of the night, and trying have a conversation with (a drunk and possibly hostile) someone while half-asleep. It also doesn't help when I don't have a flashing light bar to get their attention, because they're making so much noise that they can't hear someone knocking on the front door.
No matter how hard I try, I just can't reject the notion that government can serve a useful purpose in protecting liberty and freedom. I believe this was the intention when the country was founded. I don't reject peaceful negotiation, but the sheer number of people who range from boor to sociopath guarantees that my freedom would die a death of a thousand paper cuts were the state unable to remove the disagreeable from society for a period of time.
I'm sorry that I can't agree with L. Neil Smith on this one; I'm one of those bad neighbors, apparently. At some point in life, everyone realizes that some people just need a good punch in the face, because that's the most efficient way of dealing with the problem and preventing further trespass.
With regard to my definition of "injury", it also includes property and liberty.
As with many things discussed here, I will continue to study what I have learned, regardless of my initial disagreement, and consider the ways in which it applies to my life, as well as everyone's.
TJP- Since the "answer" I come up with seems unsatisfying, I will keep thinking on it, and I have also asked L. Neil his opinion. I also have another contact I will pose the question to. Maybe there is a good solution.
This may just be a case where you have to do what you think is right, and deal with any consequences later. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need to call the cops on anyone, but I am not saying it could never happen. I know I would feel dirty afterwards if I did it though.
I was told by Jim Davies (The founder of TOLFA) that I am looking at this wrong, that even in a free society, the matter could be decided by a (non-governmental) court, but that there is no guarantee how the case would be decided.
He also pointed out that in a free society, there would be no governmental subsidizing of tenants like these, no incentive for landlords to put up with bad tenants, and no war on drugs empowering them and making them into gangsters in the first place.
True. We'd all be in private communities with t's and c's and contractual obligations to honor them or assume the consequences of defaulting. We'd have exile from private property and ostracism as disincentives.
But we don't live in Jim Davies' libertarian utopia. He gave you the easy theoretical answer--I could have done that. I just did.
OK Jim--your neighbors are trash and they're making noise partying at 3:00 AM. You need to go to work, your kids need to go to school, you've asked them to tone it down and they laughed at you. Plus they outnumber the hell out of you and they're freakin' scary. And there's nothing to stop them from doing it again tomorrow night.
Assuming you're living in the same world the rest of us are living in, what are you going to do about it? Assume it's happening tonight.
I can't answer for anyone else, but I would probably arm myself to the teeth and use earplugs. I would also do as you did, and look for a better place to live.
Maybe I have a higher threshhold for annoyance than others. If you feel they have initiated force through their disruptive behavior, then deal with it as you see fit. I certainly would not judge your call.
I used to have a neighbor who thought it was fun to work on cars all night, using pneumatic tools. He was an angry drunk who torched a couple of cars for the insurance money; one almost in my yard. He had rude, nasty children who were well on their way to a nice life of crime. I did nothing to them, and never threatened them in any way, but they became afraid of me anyway, just because of seeing me in my yard and because of things they saw around my house. I got used to the noise; they never threatened me. Would this work for everyone? Probably not. But there is always a solution that doesn't involve initiating force.
Post a Comment