Non Aggression

There are several things on my mind this weekend.  It is of course Memorial Day weekend, and I have been thinking about what that means.  I have been watching events unfold with the Libertarians, who are having their convention this weekend and choosing their candidate.  And I have been thinking a lot about the rash of violence and deaths in St. Louis and wondering what we can do about it.

The Libertarians are big believers in the Non-Aggression Principle, and they like to debate both the philosophy behind it and the practical application of it.  Not surprisingly it has been a hot topic of discussion in Florida this weekend.  I am going to address those discussions further but the basic idea is neither complex nor controversial.

"It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another." –Walter Block

The basic principle of non-aggression is that nobody should initiate the use of force against another.  The concept applies to the actual person, as well as their freedom and their property.  I think this is what we teach small children when we tell them “Don’t hit your brother”.  It is why we ask, “Who started it?”  And it is why we introduce them to the idea of property by asking “Is that your toy or it is his toy?”

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Isocrates (436–338 BC)

Non-Aggression comes in three basic forms; between individuals, between the state and individuals, and between countries. 

The interactions between individuals involve both individual ethics and the resolution of conflicts and application of laws. Stealing is wrong, because it is an aggression against the owner of the property.  Whether it involves mugging someone on a street corner or using their credit card without permission we know intuitively that we are taking something that does not belong to us.  We are in effect taking away what someone else labored to create.  Likewise we all know that rape and kidnapping are wrong because they deprive an individual of their liberty.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."  -Thomas Jefferson

Our laws and system of courts are set up to protect the life, liberty, and property of individuals from aggression by other individuals.  When the police lawfully enforce these laws they are representing the victim and their use of force to bring the aggressor to justice is not the initiation of aggression, but a lawful and ethical reaction to it.

Non-aggression is not pacifism.  It does not preclude the idea of using violence in self-defense.  One does not have to wait to be killed in order to use force to protect their life or the lives of others.  We try to structure our laws and justice system to draw this very fine line, but many times these are shades of gray and not black and white.

"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."     

 -Ayn Rand

 

When it comes to the relationship between the State and its citizens, there is much debate about the application of the NAP.  On one extreme are the anarchists, who claim that the very existence of government violates their rights.  They claim that all ‘Taxation is Theft’, and believe that all government functions should be privatized, including police and courts and national defense.  On the one hand, I can see the philosophical justification for such a position.  I am a minarchist, favoring the smallest possible government to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual; but that means I have to justify the taxation of those who do not wish to partake of my government and the imposition of my laws upon those same people, by force if necessary.

 

"Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."  -John Locke

 

I understand the argument, and the anarchists will consider the rest of what I have to say as being arbitrary and contradictory.  The rest of you can keep following along.  I would say that although I am not a pragmatist the reality is that the voluntary system that would be put in place in such anarchy would be less effective at securing the rights of the individual than the minimal government that I favor.

 

If we assume that we are to have a government then I would put forth that the only proper function of that government is to protect individuals from threats to their life, liberty, and property from aggressors. This will not sit well with those on the other extreme, who feel governments should do much more than that.  Some would argue (as Senator Sanders does), that government should “provide” health care and education and a host of other things that people need.  They would also argue that government should protect individuals from themselves and their bad habits.

 

The non-aggression principle would not allow government to initiate the use of force against individuals who are not threatening or violating the rights of others.  When a policeman intervenes in a kidnapping he is justified under the NAP.  When they enforce other laws against peaceful non-threatening people they violate the NAP.  The government becomes the initiator of force and the depriver of Liberty or property and they become unjust.  Collecting money by force is one thing if it is to fund courts and law enforcement.  It is quite another to take money by force and redistribute it to others.

Non-aggression says nothing about what an individual SHOULD do, nor does it preclude individuals coming together voluntarily to help each other and to enter into contracts or to donate to charity.  These are decisions for individuals to make and fall under the realm of personal ethics.

 

“Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets”. –Jesus of Nazareth

 

When it comes to relationships between nations, the NAP is a useful tool for evaluating whether or not our government should use force against another people.  In the case of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there is little question that Japan initiated the use of force against the United States.  Our subsequent attacks against them were justified under that philosophy.  But often the situation is not as clear. 

 

We were clearly attacked on 9/11 when planes flew into the World Trade Center, but who was the aggressor?  Most of the attackers were Saudis, but we ended up going to war with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Our use of force against Bin Laden may have been justified, but we had no justification to kill any innocent Afghan citizens.  Each time we do so we are the ones initiating the use of force and they are then justified in seeking retribution against us.

 

In Syria, we face the reality of atrocities being committed against human beings in the course of warfare and we are moved to do something about it.  However, we have not been attacked by Syria.  Can we use domestic attacks in the US by extremists as justification for going to war?  I don’t think so.

 

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." –Murray Rothbard

 

The violence in St. Louis has claimed another life.  We all feel the sadness and frustration of this situation, and we are moved to do something to fix the problem.  The long term solution is to raise all of our children to respect others.  If we instill them with the idea that they cannot violate the rights of others, as most parents do, then the chances are good they will grow up to be good citizens who treat others properly.

We know that non-aggression is only part of the solution.  The other part involves our individual ethics and morality.  We are not REQUIRED to help others, but we SHOULD help others.  When other members of society are unemployed or homeless or hungry then we have a moral duty to reach out and offer help.  Doing so is not just the right thing to do it will keep people from becoming desperate and violating the rights of others.

Whenever our law enforcement officers overstep their bounds and do more than is necessary to protect life, liberty, and property they corrupt he system and breed distrust among citizens.  It is often a very fine line and most of the time our police do the very hard job they have been entrusted to do and do it well.  Unfortunately, that is often not the perception in some communities.  The police are sometimes seen as the initiators of force and violators of the NAP, often unjustly but sometimes because of the actions of one or two individuals.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". –John Stuart Mill

Changing our communities and altering these perceptions is very difficult and does not happen overnight.  But we must start reaching out to those most in need of help and we have to begin the hard work of changing minds and shifting paradigms.  To do so we must be very clear about those paradigms.  The NAP is not a complete solution to anything but it is a fundamental part of the framework of our concept of government.

The soldiers whose lives we remember this weekend died in defense of our freedom.  Whether on the beaches in Normandy, or in jungles in the Far East, or in the sands of the Middle East, they died while serving our military in the defense of our country.  They were not all perfect people but they paid the ultimate price so that all of us could live in peace.

Not all of the wars we have been involved in were justified by an act of aggression against the United States.  Not all of those wars were good ideas.  And sometimes they have resulted in our country being seen as the aggressor, the initiator of force and violence against others who were not a threat to us.  We cannot change the past, or undo the damage we created.  But we can change our paradigm and perceptions going forward.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

— Talmud, Shabbat 31a

 

There are evil men in the world.  There are those who care nothing for our lives, our liberty, or our property.  They are an affront to our sense of morality and a threat to peaceful society both in St. Louis and around the world.  We must stand up to evil and to aggression.  We must defend our life, liberty, and property not just for ourselves but for future generations.

We cannot all travel over to the beaches of Normandy or the city of Ferguson as individuals and fight against these threats to freedom.  Our soldiers (and police) are our representatives, but more than that they are putting their lives on the line in our place.  And sometimes, they give their very lives on a battlefield so that their families and communities can remain safe and free.  At a minimum, we owe them the respect of never forgetting their ultimate sacrifice.

As we pause to remember our heroes let us also look to the future.  As we choose our leaders let us be aware of their paradigm and core principles.  As we barbeque and open our pools let us also reflect on how we can reach out and change the paradigm in our own community and stop the violence.  Talk to your family about these things as you gather together.  It may not be a comfortable thing to do but it is a necessary thing to do.

We are able to enjoy our pools and hot dogs and freedom this weekend because of the hard work and sacrifices of those who came before us.  Let us honor them by thinking of our grandchildren and those who will come after us, and by making a difference in the world we live in today.