  | |||||
| THE BASE | WEB SERVICES | GOODS | CHOICES | THE SUMMIT | |
 
Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand Anthem, Ayn Rand Frederic Bastiat The Lysander Spooner Reader Human Action, Ludwig von Mises What is a libertarian?
L.
Neil Smith 
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." Where to Meet Libertarians
The Libertarian Party: www.lp.org DuPage (IL) Libertarians The Liberty Learning Exchange 
|
Introduction to the Non-Initiation of Force (NIF) Principle
compiled by John Teschky
Presented at the 3 Feb 2003 DuPage Libertarian meeting
The N.I.F. Principle: I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. Part 1: History of the Idea [go]
350 BC: Aristotle
20 BC: Hillel 30 AD: Jesus 1690 AD: John Locke 1961 AD: Ayn Rand 1972 AD: Libertarian Party Part 2: Argument for the Idea [go]
The Law of Identity: A is A Existence Exists Reality is Objective Logic: Conforming thoughts to the Law of Identity Reason in the Human Tool for Understanding. Reason is the Human Means of Survival Rational Humans will have a Harmony of Interests The Initiation of Force is Unethical Part 4: Explanations & Applications of the Idea [go]
Part 5: Attempts to Discredit the NIF Principle [go]
Part 1: History of the Idea
350 BC: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, III, 1
Good and virtuous actions must be voluntary
c. 20 BC: Hillel "Do not unto others that which is hateful unto thee." (Thank you, R. Latimer)
Hillel, fl. c. 30 B.C.-A.D. 10, Jewish scholar, regarded as the forebear of the later patriarchs who led the Jews of Palestine until c. A.D. 400. The Jerusalem Talmud calls him the president of the Sanhedrin. He and Shammai formed the most important of the rabbinic zuggot (oppositional pairs), with Hillel usually taking a more liberal stance in the interpretation of scripture. He was the great spiritual and ethical leader of his generation. His most famous maxim is "Do not unto others that which is hateful unto thee." The Difference between "Hillel's Law" and "The Golden Rule", by Richard Latimer, April 2003 Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Hille's Law: Do NOT unto others, as you would NOT have them do unto you. A few points about these two general principles: 1. I was told that the latter preceded the former by many years. (Hillel was an early BC Jewish scholar, as I recall.) 2. The former is impossible to do (given the vast number of "others"), while the latter is quite simple to do [in most situations]. It would seem to me that 3. the so-called "Non Initiation of Physical Force" principle [and (negative) individual rights] might been derived with "Hille's Law" [or some variant on it] in mind, while 4. welfare statism [and so called "entitlement (positive) rights"] might be derived with "The Golden Rule" [or some variant on it] in mind. 5. Or similarly, compare the reasonableness of "rational self interest" and of individualism with the unreasonableness of altruism and of coercive collectivism, as their being deriveative from these two simple earlier principles/mindsets. 6. Finally, "The Golden Rule" is, of course, not a bad guideline for achieving mutually benevolent empathy with the individuals that one encounters in one's daily life, but it may have very bad consequences, when one takes it as a commandment and seeks to impose The Rule on others, as one's mission or one's crusade. c. 30 AD: Jesus
The Golden Rule (followed by Christians, unless they are arguing for a pre-emptive
strike on a dark-skinned nation).
1690 AD: John
Locke, The Second Treatise On Civil Government Since men are equal
and independent, they should not harm one another regarding their "life,
health, liberty, or possessions...."
1961 AD: Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is:
no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man-or
group or society or government-has the right to assume the role of a
criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man."
1972 AD: Libertarian
Party
"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as
a means of achieving political or social goals."
c. 2000 AD: L.
Neil Smith "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has
the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently
with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those
who fail to act consistently with it are _not_ libertarians, regardless of what
they may claim"
2003 AD: The Libertarian
Party's Legislative Program
"Libertarians believe that each of us should be
allowed to plan his or her own future. We believe that individuals have the
right to deal with their own problems. This can be done individually or by working
with others in a peaceful and honest way. We reject the initiation of force
by anyone, including government.
"Today our government uses force, or the threat of force, to achieve most of its goals. Repeated failures by our government have shown us that this is not a practical approach. As Libertarians, we also believe that this use of force is immoral. "Libertarians seek a world in which voluntary cooperation replaces force in human relationships. We recognize that such a world cannot be achieved overnight. We have identified several important issues which are topics currently in the political spotlight. In each case, we believe there are substantial changes that could be made to move toward our goal -- replacing aggression and force with peace and cooperation." Part 2: Argument for the Idea
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Chart.shtml
1) A is A:
Aristotle's Law of Identity
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Metaphysics_Identity.shtml
[ Unity, Identity, & Explanation in...] Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity
exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part
of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable."
"This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round,
dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we
are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of
identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include
all of their features, not just those mentioned.
Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity. To have an identity means a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities. The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions. 2) Logic
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Epistemology_Logic.shtml
Logic is the art of conforming one's thoughts to the
Law of Identity. In one respect, thoughts have to conform to the Law of Identity,
as does everything else. This has to do with the nature of thoughts. Ideas have
a different nature than memories, which are different from emotions. In this
respect, all thoughts conform to the Law of Identity.
In a different respect, though, it requires focused action to conform to the Law of Identity. Ideas have content. This content is generated by the thinker from perceptual data. However, it may be generated incorrectly. Logic requires the content to be clear and identifiable. It requires that no contradiction exist within the idea. Logic is used in integrating ideas as well. Again, it is the process of conforming to the Law of Identity. What this means in practice is combining information clearly, and without contradiction. It must be combined into a specific, identifiable package, that doesn't contradict itself. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It is the mental tool that sets the standard for proper thought. It is the foundation of knowledge. It is the means of understanding and clarity. Without logic, we could not distinguish between the true and the false. We could not throw out bad ideas because we could not judge them as bad. Without logic, our minds would be cluttered with so many absurdities and falsehoods that if there was some truth, it would be lost in the garbage of contradictions, fuzzy thoughts, and non-integrated mental images. 3) Reason
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Epistemology_Reason.shtml
Reason is man's tool of understanding. It is the method
of identifying entities through one's senses. It is the means of integrating
those perceptions into concepts, gaining knowledge through this integration,
integrating that knowledge into the rest of one's knowledge, and evaluating
and manipulating ideas and facts.
Reason is the process of thinking. Its fundamental attribute is clarity. The use of vague notions, fuzzy feelings, or "instincts" is not reason. Reason requires clear, identifiable building blocks. It uses ideas, memories, emotions, and sensory input. The ideas must be clear and definable. The memories must be recognizable, and vivid. The emotions are recognized as emotions only, with no further meaning. The sensory input must be identified in order to be used. Reason is organized. It is systematic and purposeful. It concentrates on fundamentals, and makes pertinent associations. Since clarity is the purpose of reason, it must use clear methods, as well as clear tools. It must use logic, deduction, and induction. Reason is the method of thinking in an organized, clear way to achieve knowledge and understanding. Since it is a means, its importance and significance is in its method. The ends toward which it is used defines the validity of the method. Understanding and knowledge is the criteria for evaluating the use of reason. Knowledge is knowledge about reality. Its base is perception, and its method is reason. We gain knowledge through observing reality. We use our minds to identify what we have observed by gathering more perceptual information until we can understand what we see. Reason is the tool that allows us to determine how to gather more information, and what kind of information we need. Reason is then used to compare and combine that new information into the rest of our body of knowledge in order to acquire a more complete understanding. Knowledge requires clarity and the identification of limits and boundaries. Only reason can collect sensory data into something meaningful, which is clear and definable. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. Emotions, perceptual memories, or vague notions are not knowledge. Knowledge is lucid and can only be formed by the use of reason. There is no other path. Reason is absolute. 4) Reason is Man's Means
of Survival
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Ethics_ReasonIsMansMeans.shtml
Man's essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man's mind is his basic means of survival--his only means of gaining knowledge... Ayn Rand,
"What is Capitalism?"
Homo Sapiens are not particularly fast. They don't have
sharp claws or teeth. They don't have hard shells nor can they digest grass.
They can't fly, spit poison, or release skunky stink bombs. So why are there
so many of us? Bears should have eaten us all a long time ago. No -- we humans
are still around because we're smarter than the average bear.
Man's mind is his tool of survival. The mind is used to gain, use, store, and recall knowledge. It is his mind that enables a farmer to know what to plant, when to plant it, how to nurture it, when to harvest it, how to prepare food from the result. It is his mind that enables a hunter to know what he needs to make a spear, how to make it, and how to use it. And it is his mind that enables a blacksmith to know what rocks contain ore, how to extract the ore, and how to make a forge and tools. In short, it is the mind that enables a person to know what to do in order to survive. Man's mind allows long-range planning and thinking. It enables such long-range planning as required for farming, hunting, and tool making. These endeavors require the ability to conceptualize long-term cause and effect chains. "I need to make a spear tonight so I can hunt tomorrow and have food for the next 7 days." There may be some environments where people could survive for a while without long range planning, but without the results of knowledge like spears, fire, and other technologies, people would get out-bred by other animals and die out. Man's mind is his tool for survival, but like all tools, it must be properly used. The mind manipulates knowledge, and knowledge can only be obtained through reason. Without reason, there is no knowledge, and thus no survival. You must recognize reality and act in accordance with it in order to be successful (reality is absolute). To the extent that you use reason as your method of judgment in knowledge and action, you will survive and flourish. To the extent that you ignore or evade reality, you will suffer and die. It is very important to note that survival by reason requires the freedom to act according to your reason. This is why men do not thrive under coercion, and can not survive when they are subject to the initiation of force by others. 5) Harmony of Interests
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Ethics_HarmonyOfInterests.shtml
With a proper understanding of one's interests, it can
be seen that there is a harmony of interests between rational men. That we benefit
enormously from positive interactions with others. This benefit comes in the
form of the abundance of wealth made possible by a Capitalism, to the continuing
increase of knowledge available to mankind. It comes in the form of friendships,
romantic love, and the support of one's family. The harmony of interests bring
men together in peaceful cooperation to benefit their lives. This is the bedrock
of society. It is why people choose to live in a society.
Although the desires of men may be opposed, their interests are not. Living in a peaceful society is of incalculable benefit to man. Any possible advantage gain from living outside of a peaceful society is insignificant compared to the loss. For instance, living in a wilderness may bring you more peace and quiet, but it is at the expense of friendships and the enormous material wealth possible in a society. The harmony of interests only exists between rational men. Irrational men and the use of force are not in the interests of other men. Men's interests are only in harmony with peaceful, voluntary interactions. Only when men live by the Trader Principle do their interests unite. Only when men accept persuasion and trade do they become a benefit to other men. 6) The Initiation
of Force
http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Politics_InitiationOfForce.shtml
The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating
force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such
acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person
without their consent.
The initiation of force is never moral. Man's nature is such that he survives by reason. Survival by reason requires the ability to act on your reason. Force destroys that ability. When you use force against someone, you are destroying their ability to survive by destroying their ability to use reason, and their ability to survive will suffer to the extent that force is used. When force is introduced into the equation of human relations, survival becomes harder and harder until everyone dies. If there is some parasite living off others, one thing is clear: he needs his victims while they do not need him. If you use force to get what you want, not only do you give him reason to retaliate, but you diminish your own ability to survive by becoming dependent on your victim. Once your victims all die off, you're screwed. In the end, the result of force is death. If a man uses force against you, he is declaring that he does not want to survive by means of reason. He is telling you that he doesn't recognize your right to exist as an independent individual. According to him, might makes right, and he is just taking his share from the local sucker. When you come up against a person who views force as the proper means of relating to people, you know that this is a person not worth dealing with. This is a person outside the realm of morality, and once outside, moral conventions and principles have no place. There is only one way to deal with such a person, and that is with retaliatory force. The difference between the initiation of force and retaliatory force is that retaliatory force is a response to force. It is force meeting force in kind. It is the only proper response to a person who initiates force. Since force inhibits survival, men can only thrive within a society if they are shielded from the coercion of others. Government is instituted among men to fulfill this function. Part 4: Explanations of the Idea
"Freedom is the absence
of coercion." --L. Neil Smith
"...despite the way most Americans are deliberately
miseducated about freedom and democracy -- was that they aren't even
closely related political entities. Freedom is the absence of coercion.
Period. The end.
"Democracy, as the saying goes, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Hitler claimed to be a democrat, and so did Stalin. "Democracy is also a state of perpetual warfare between voracious special interest groups -- all competing for a cut of trillions stolen for them from the Productive Class by government thugs -- and between the individual politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers who champion and cater to them. Best of all (from their viewpoint), it means perpetual employment for all three, because it never, ever ends. Last year's "final" vote is always subject to revision or reversal by next year's session of the legislature, if not by "the people" at this year's election. "What keeps it going is this simple fact: the lust for power over other people's lives is a sickness, an incurable, insatiable pathology that leads, when it can, to the accumulation of more and more power. There never lived a city councilman (or woman) or county commissioner, in a brand new cheap blue suit from Sears, who didn't gaze at himself in the full-length mirror on the back of his closet door and imagine himself being called "Mr. President." The ultimate, collectivized expression of that individual lust for power is the 20th century Superstate." Brian Drake's essay "Why I Will Not Vote for
Myself."
(He was the 2002 Libertarian candidate for State Representative
of House District 15 in Texas.)
"...[V]oting is a terrific way to initiate force
and then shirk all responsibility for it.
"Despite popular rhetoric, democracy is not synonymous with freedom. Taking something without permission is theft, but not when the majority goes along with it and calls it taxation. Matters that should be of no interest to any other person (i.e., what a person chooses to do with his or her body) become matters of public policy when the majority says so. The recipe is fairly straightforward. All you have to do is appoint someone else to initiate force on your behalf, get enough people to pick the same candidate, and then hide behind the waving banner of free and open elections. The syllogism goes something like: The initiation of force is wrong, so I cannot initiate force without punishment. Democratic elections are good. If I help to elect someone to public office, then he or she initiates force on my behalf. "I can no longer go along with it. I cannot participate in a system that promotes force under the guise of majority-rules and a perverted sense of freedom. This is why on November 5, I will not vote in any election, including my own." Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy
http://www.daft.com/~rab/liberty/libphilo.html
by Joseph Knight What is the proper role of government in a free society?
To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by "government."
Government is the use of force. To govern means to control. The use of force is implicit in the definition of control. Otherwise, it would be "influence" rather than control. Even the good things that governments do involve the use of force somewhere, somehow. Sometimes government uses force directly to control behavior. Other times, government uses money taken by force to fund activities which would otherwise not involve the use of force. Understanding that government is the use of force, the question then becomes "What is the proper use of force in a free society?" To answer this question, we first look at different types of force: INITIAL FORCE: In any group of people, from 2 to 20 billion, there is no use of force until someone uses it first. Initial force is aggression or coercion. DEFENSIVE FORCE: Defensive force is the use of force to defend your safety, rights, or property. You have the right to defend yourself, and the right to authorize others, such as those in government, to use defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force is survival. RETALIATORY FORCE: Retaliatory force is punishment of someone who has initiated force. If someone assaults you, you have the right to authorize government to punish those responsible in your behalf. Retaliatory force is justice. [1] Some people have suggested a fourth category of preemptive force but most examples of preemptive force, upon analysis, can be placed in one of the other three categories. Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force. Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force. Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy. Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force. A robber cannot be "free" to steal your property nor can the bully be "free" to strike you. The robber and the bully have initiated force and the condition of freedom doesn't exist unless there is an absence of the initiation of force. Consequently, a "right" cannot be something which must be had at the expense of others. You have the right to free speech, but not to compel others to provide your forum. You have the right to earn a living, but not to compel others to provide your living. You have the right to believe in whatever religion you choose, but if your god requires the sacrifice of virgins, you must find a virgin willing to be sacrificed without the initiation of force. [2] Libertarians apply the non-coercion principle to all human behavior. It doesn't matter if the initiators of force are in or out of government. Government doesn't confer some mystical right on some to violate the rights of others. If it is wrong for a person to commit a rape as an individual, it must be equally wrong for a person to commit a rape as an agent of government. If somebody takes your property without your permission, it is theft (an initiation of force). It's theft regardless of whether the loot is used to buy drugs or to feed the poor. It is theft regardless of whether there is 1 thief or 280 million thieves. It is theft regardless of whether the gang calls itself the "Sons of Satan" or the "Internal Revenue Service." The proper role of government (force) in a free society then, is to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force. Government in a free society should not be the initiator of force. Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, and fraud, are laws against the initiation of force. Enforcement of such laws is the application of defensive and/or retaliatory force, and is appropriate for government in a free society. Other laws constitute an initiation of force. Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals. Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state. Government should not initiate force to impose lifestyles or moral codes. Government should not even initiate force when "it's for your own good." In a free society, you have property rights. You can use honestly acquired property in any way that does not constitute initiation of force or fraud, trespass on the property of others, or violate agreements you have voluntarily entered into. You decide which charities to support, and don't have to sacrifice your property against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than you. In a free society, you have personal rights. You can live however you want so long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others or their property. You decide what risks to take, what to believe in, and how to entertain yourself. Property rights and personal rights are really the same. Personal rights are based on property rights because you own your life, your body, and your mind. Ownership and the use of honestly acquired property is not, in and of itself, an initiation of force and therefore does not violate the rights of others. If someone owns an AK-47 and uses it to murder school children, it is the murder that is the initiation of force, not the ownership of the AK-47. Murder should be prohibited and punished regardless of the weapon used. Most people who own AK-47's do not murder school children or anybody else. If you own or rent a sexually explicit video and commit a sexual assault after viewing it, it is the sexual assault that is the initiation of force, not the viewing of the video. Rape should be prohibited whether "obscenity" is involved or not. Most people who view sexually explicit films do not commit sexual assaults. If someone owns and uses drugs, and steals to buy more drugs, it is the theft that is the initiation of force. Theft should be prohibited regardless of what the loot is spent on. The use of drugs is not an initiation of force. In the old days people sometimes had to answer to the church for their crimes. Some thought they could lessen the gravity of their offenses by claiming possession. "Your Holiness, the devil made me do it." What we often hear today is "Your Honor, the drugs made me do it" or "Your Honor, the pornography made me do it" or "Your Honor, my unhappy childhood made me do it." With freedom comes responsibility. If you initiate force, you should be held fully accountable. No cop-outs, no devils, no shifting the blame to others or to inanimate objects. If you do not initiate force or fraud (a subtle form of force), you should be left alone and force should not be initiated against you by government or anybody else. It's that simple. Libertarian Pledge
http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid23.htm
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE
THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS
Would you sign this? it's the Libertarian Party pledge on every membership card. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I... The pledge is a statement of fact in the present tense about the signer. ...DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE... The pledge says nothing about your beliefs except that a particular one is absent. It says nothing about your behavior except that you refrain from a particular advocacy. ...THE INITIATION OF FORCE... This can be paraphrased as a no first strike policy. When children fight they often accuse each other of hitting first. By renouncing initiation of force, the libertarian becomes uniquely non-threatening. The pledge permits the Libertarian Party to function freely in an age when other subversive and radical groups are being persecuted. All force is not initiation, libertarians don't renounce retaliation and many own weapons. Governments get money by initiating force so libertarians don't believe in taxes. Governments regulate by initiating force so libertarians don't believe in regulation. ...AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS. That's all there is to it. The pledge doesn't ask why you don't believe in initiation of force. Perhaps you see the initiation of force an inefficient way to solve problems. Perhaps you see the initiation of force an immoral way to solve problems. Perhaps you see the initiation of force as damaging your karma. Perhaps you don't believe in or advocate anything political or have any social goals. You just want the government to leave you alone! Sign the pledge! You've just discovered you're a libertarian. Libertarian Political Philosophy
http://www.pacificnet.net/~dpm/libphil.html
Libertarian political philosophy can be stated very simply:
It is wrong for any person or group of people to initiate force against any
other person or group. Therefore, the only appropriate way people have to deal
with each other is on the basis of mutual consent and agreement. This is the
fundamental social contract that libertarians wish to see effected between all
people in all societies. There are a lot of erroneous definitions of libertarianism
floating around, but this is the concise definition expounded by libertarian
groups including the Libertarian Party. Anyone who holds this view is a libertarian.
No mention is made yet of government. To libertarians, government is just a means to help achieve and maintain this contract between people. Because government itself is just people, it may not initiate force against any person or group, and may act only in response to someone else's forceful act. Fraud is also prohibited. Since fraud is a willful violation of an agreement, it only leaves the victim the use of force as a means of redress, which is what libertarians seek to avoid. http://www.voteruff.org/ What is an initiation of force? If I as an individual
take your money without your permission, that is theft. As it was not a voluntary
transaction, it was an initiation of force against you, and I am automatically
wrong. If I attempt to take your money without your permission, and you use
force to defend yourself against me, is that an initiation of force? Of course
not. You did not use force until I used force against you--thus I am the initiator,
and while your use of force is justified, mine is not. The Shoshone (a tribe
of American Indians) had a saying: "A thief is shot in the night. Whose
hand is on the bow?" The implication is that the thief is responsible for
his own death--his was the hand on the bow--because he was the initiator of
force. Another way to put this is that we have the right to be free from force,
until we initiate force against another, upon which we have waived our right
to be free from force.
Basically, the whole of criminal law should only be concerned with the Initiation of force against others, to include their property. This means that an act of assault should be considered a crime, as should a murder, as should an act of vandalism, as should an act of theft, or of fraud. All these are initiations of force. Criminal law has no place in consensual actions of adults. So, prostitution, drug production, use and sales, adult pornography, alcohol and tobacco consumption, cohabitation, homosexuality, dancing, music with "obscene" or "profane" lyrics, television shows that depict sex and violence, books that do the same, etc. all must be allowed. It is only the protection of people's rights to these things that allows us to enjoy those things we enjoy. The second we let the government take the power to regulate any of these areas, we are opening the door to allow the government to get involved in regulating those things we do approve of. Every time the government gets away with censoring a television show because of its sex or violence content, we enable the government to censor religious or educational programming. Every time we allow the government to censor one of the pornographic magazines, we are enabling it to censor the Bible, the Q'uran, the Torah and Talmud, or whichever religious text you prefer. Every time we allow government to get away with telling homosexuals they cannot engage in sexual relations, we enable the government to gain the power to tell people who they may marry. And the list goes on. If you think these things don't happen, you haven't been paying attention. You think the government doesn't regulate who may get married? What is it you must apply for before you may marry? That's right--a marriage license, government permission. The Mormons used to practice polygamy. It was a tenet of their religion. They are not allowed to do so anymore. Why? Because the government will not allow it. Why? Who knows. What justification is there for telling consenting adults they may not marry, on the basis of numbers? I can't tell you. I myself am interested in the traditional "one man, one woman" marriage, but why are those who prefer something different not allowed to do as they wish? No reason, except it is forbidden by law. Freedom and the Non-Initiation of Force
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe193-20021007-04.html
by Mark Etanerkist, mark_etanerkist@yahoo.com
Exclusive to TLE Lately I've been seeing a disturbing trend. The trend is for libertarians to bash the non-initiation of force principle, also known as the non-aggression principle. This is seen in TLE #192 with John "Birdman" Bryant's essay and recently at anti-state.com with George Justin Mallone's essay. The problem these two have is that not initiating force is impractical. Bryant claims that it gets in the way of stopping someone who you know will attack you. While Mallone claims that liberty will be difficult to advance if libertarians can't initiate force. Here I will show that the non-initiation of force principle not only allows individuals to prevent an attack from occurring but is also necessary to advancing the cause of liberty. First, what if I know someone will attack or harm me in some way? Obviously, I will want to stop this from happening, and this may take force. But will this force be considered an initiation? Since no one is in the process of attacking me, am I bound to pacifism until someone does? Hell no! It is safe to say that almost all libertarians will agree that someone who is pointing a gun at me is initiating force. Even if the person doesn't make any demands of me and remains quiet, the act of pointing a gun at me is an obvious threat that can be met with retaliation if I choose. If I retaliate and kill the person with the gun, I am not initiating force. Through his actions the person with the gun made a credible threat to my life. In fact, Bryant recognizes my right to do this and makes almost the same point I just made. The only difference is that, apparently, Bryant thinks I am initiating force. What Bryant doesn't seem to understand is that the non-initiation of force principle covers the threat of force. The way I see it is it is absolutely wrong to initiate force, threaten to initiate force, or delegate the initiation of force to another. But just because it is okay to stop a credible threat from evolving into action, it doesn't give you a blank check to do anything you want to someone who gives you a nasty look or makes a threat that obviously won't be carried out. If you are going to attack someone before he attacks you, you must be able to show why he deserves to be attacked and show that it was going to be either him or you. Maybe this pesky innocent until proven guilty thing is what Bryant doesn't like about the non-aggression principle. Speaking of not liking the non-initiation of force principle, George Justin Mallone writing for anti-state.com has this to say: "Therefore, if one is in a position to preserve liberty through generally disagreeable means, even if the means' existence is wrong, even if innocents will be harmed, their usage in the preservation of greater freedom is not immoral. In fact, if one truly prioritizes freedom as a value, then not using such means is acting against your explicit values, and thus immoral." You read that correctly, he is actually saying that if I value freedom and I don't kill innocent people in acquiring freedom, I am acting immorally! So, if obtaining freedom somehow necessitated killing Mr. Mallone, then I guess he would have no problem with it and his relatives would have no way to morally collect any form of restitution from me. The same goes for all people who reject the non-initiation of force principle. These people are signing their own death warrant. They are saying that as long as the end is noble, it doesn't matter how much property you loot or how many people you kill. Only a society that seeks to punish all people who initiate force will ever be free. Therefore, the only way to obtain a free society is to punish the people who are allowed to initiate force unpunished. The only thing standing in the way of freedom right now is a large group of people who claim to have the right to initiate force and are backed by the masses. Without people using this force unpunished, no one could stop you from being free. So how can a group of people claiming it is right to initiate force be eliminated by a group of people who claim it is right to initiate force? The only difference between the two groups is what they want to accomplish. The government wants to use its "right" to initiate force to further its influence and power, while the libertarians who don't agree with the non- initiation of force principle want to use their "right" to initiate force to remove the government from power. But once the government is removed from power, what stops the overthrowers from taking power themselves? After all, if it is okay to initiate force to further the end of overthrowing a thieving, murderous government, then how can it be wrong to collect a few small taxes in order to provide for the common defense? And once that's established as normal and right, how can it be wrong to collect a few more small taxes to guarantee schooling for poor kids? And this will go on and on until we are right back to where we started. This is why for freedom to emerge, it must ride in on a wave of non- violence, moral violence, or a combination of both. Non-violence and civil disobedience are great strategies if you have the numbers, which libertarians don't. But its best use, perhaps, is to obtain individual freedom. If you take the right precautions, (living behind a fog of numerous, legitimate identities, not giving the government any true information about yourself, and generally living a private life) it is possible to live almost completely free of government tyranny. If the government doesn't know anything about you, and doesn't know where you live, and if every time you encounter the government you have a different, yet legitimate ID, how can they get you for tax evasion? How can they get you for not paying tickets? However, not many take this route because it is just too dangerous and they have too much to lose. So, if we are ever going to be free, moral violence, that is violence against people who violate the rights of others, especially under the color of law, must be used. The people who are most responsible for the current government, the people in power, must be punished severely, systematically, and constantly until it is just too costly to even attempt to gain any significant position of power. The Alien Intelligence Test
Santa Clara Libertarian
September 1995 (Volume 23, Number 9) http://www.sc.ca.lp.org/scl/9509-alien.html By Terry Savage Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and consider an unlikely scenario! You have been captured by Evil Aliens, and they are planning to use you for an experiment. You are informed that there are two rooms on the alien ship that have people in them, 100 people in one room, and 50 people in the other room. You don't know anyone in either room. A poison gas has been released and is slowly drifting toward the room with 100 people in it, and will kill them all if it gets there. The aliens give you a remote control switch that will divert the gas from the room with 100 people to the room with 50 people, if you use it. The test is: Do you Throw the switch? Hint: No "Captain Kirk" solutions are allowed (seducing the alien captain, for example, or making a phaser out of a toenail). Also, the aliens aren't interested in your desire for more information; the question must be answered as asked. For me, the answer is obvious: I would throw the switch in a heartbeat. Some intelligent libertarians, however, would strongly argue that they would not. What's going on here? Doesn't libertarian philosophy give a clear answer to such a basic question? Let's phrase the question a different way, and get a different perspective. Instead of the above scenario, the aliens tell you that there are 150 people at risk of death, and you get to choose between one of two outcomes. If you choose A or don't make a choice, then 100 people die, and if you choose B, then 50 people die. This is all the information you get; no details about how the outcomes are produced. What do you do? Given this revised scenario, is there anyone who would actually choose A, or decline to choose? Very few, I suspect, if any. There is an apparent paradox here. Clearly, 50 deaths are better than 100 deaths, all other things being equal, and yet the only real difference in the two situations above is that in the first scenario, you have more information, and more obvious control over the outcome. For those who would *not* throw the switch in the first case, the question is, why should increased information lead to an inferior outcome? The key to all of this is a more detailed look at the "prime directive" of libertarianism that forbids the initiation of force. The word "initiation" was carefully selected, since the use of force in self defense or the defense of others is clearly acceptable. Some of those who argue they would not throw the switch say they could not morally do so, since they would be initiating force against the 50 people who would die. I submit that this is not correct; it is the aliens who initiated force. The individual throwing the switch is simply deflecting the force to a less destructive outcome. This distinction is not some mere semantic subtlety; it has vital implications for a wide range of policy questions. A good example is the current debate between the income tax vs a national sales tax. Assume for the moment that the amount of taxes to be collected has been driven down as far as you can immediately drive it, and you're faced with how to collect that amount. Assume a revenue neutral shift that eliminates the income tax and replaces it with a national sales tax, and increases economic activity as most who study the issue agree that it would. Some people are better off, some people are worse off, and the system, as a whole, is better off. Are you initiating force by starting the sales tax? No, you're deflecting a force that was going to collect taxes somehow into a less destructive path The majority of options for improving the world are of this kind. We should never stop fighting to drive taxes down to zero, and while we're doing that, we should not pass up opportunities to make the world a better place without the initiation of force. The distinction between the initiation and the deflection of force is critical to our ability to be politically effective, and morally sound at the same time. The cause of freedom is best served by making the choices that we actually have today, while working to have the choices we really want for tomorrow. BEYOND GOVERNMENT
by Harry Reid, Copyright 1994
http://dwatney.members.atlantic.net/reid/reid04.htm Libertarianism and Nonviolence Libertarians believe initiation of violence is always wrong. Only the initiation of force or fraud is crime to a libertarian. Fraud is often described as an indirect form of violence, making initiation of violence the only crime to many libertarians. To oppose government is to oppose institutional violence. According to Ludwig Von Mises, a primary libertarian writer, "The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave." When government is perceived thus, opposition to violence implies libertarianism. Libertarian Party members sign a pledge of nonviolence. "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Libertarians always oppose initiation of violence. Although bees can sting they are considered friendly since they are harmless when left alone. So too with libertarians. The only time violence is excused within libertarianism is in defense against violence initiated by others. According to Lanza del Vasto, a leader of the nonviolent movement in France, the nonviolent are distinguished by these three beliefs:
1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ron Paul
said libertarians seek a society where "there shall be no initiation of
force by anyone, particularly Government."
What a Libertarian Is - and Is Not
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/libertar.htm
by Sam Wells
A libertarian is a person - any person - who consistently advocates individual freedom and consistently opposes the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone upon the person or property of anyone else for any reason. (Coercion is here defined as any action taken by a human being against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to his or her body or property. This includes murder, rape, kidnaping, assault, trespassing, burglary, robbery, arson and fraud.) Some libertarians (such as the late Robert LeFevre) not only oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, but also the use of retaliatory coercion (revenge or criminal justice). The vast majority of libertarians, however, maintain that physical force used in self-defense or defense of one's family or property is fully justifiable. But, all libertarians, by definition, at least oppose the initiatory use of coercion. They support the rational principle of the individual human rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that each individual has the right to keep what he earns for himself and his family, and this includes the right to use, trade, sell, give away, or dispose of his property as he sees fit. A person who violates the rights of others by initiating coercion, violence, or fraud against them forfeits his right to be left alone by government and may be arrested, charged, tried, and imprisoned, deported or executed if convicted (depending on the nature of his or her crimes). The basic, proper function of lawful government is therefore limited to protecting these rights of the peaceful individual from criminals and foreign aggression, and in not violating these rights itself, for if government is allowed to go beyond this legitimate function and itself initiates force in violation of the rights of peaceful citizens, it necessarily contradicts the only rational justification for its own existence by acting criminally itself. The only obligation that true rights impose on persons is of a negative kind: not to interfere with the rights of other people - i.e., to refrain from the initiation of the use of coercion. This is the core principle of libertarianism and is sometimes called the 'Non-Aggression Axiom'. Libertarians Are Not Pragmatists Libertarians do not advocate freedom or the free-market economy merely because "it works" (which it does better than any other system); they support it as the only non-coercive and just system - the system in which people are free to deal with one another on a voluntary basis as traders (exchangers of goods and services) instead of as masters and slaves - or as privileged class and exploited host. Others advocate government by whim. Libertarians adhere to certain principles, and without the guidance of principles and standards, all that is left is pragmatic expediency and the tyranny of government by whim. One might say that libertarians are "idealists" in the popular sense of that word; after all, libertarians stand for certain ideals - goals to strive for (e.g., less government intervention, more individual freedom and moral responsibility, free markets, etc.). Because libertarianism is based on man's nature and the nature of reality, it is the most practicable social system. Libertarians are practical idealists. GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING
http://webleyweb.com/tle/libe209-20030203-01.html#letter2
TLE 209: 1/2/03 A number of writers pointed out
that Brian Gross misunderstood or mischaracterized the ZAP, which prohibits
initiation of force rather than harm. Yet harm is not irrelevant, and it may
help to point out how it typically results from the initiation or threat
of force in situations where that may not be apparent.
Taking the example of effects on insurance premiums that has already illustrated points on both sides, let's consider what the contributing causal elements are. On the one hand is the very salient behavior of someone engaging in dangerous activity. Add to that the natural interest insurance companies have in restricting coverage for (and/or raising premiums for) such activity, and you might think that's the whole picture. One's actions appear on this view to have a rather direct influence on insurance rates for others, and thus visit harm unjustly on others. What's missing from this view is the intervention of government, using (TA-DA!) the threat of force. Not just anyone can offer insurance on their own terms to all willing customers. No, if you try that the government will rain on your parade in a big way. In order to get their permission to issue insurance, you must agree to all manner of conditions concerning what you will cover and how you'll manage your risk pool -- conditions that seriously screw up the market forces that otherwise would give us an unlimited range of possible insurance coverages at rates dictated only by what the market will bear. The consumer, then, becomes the victim of government's meddling in the insurance market. They can't buy a policy whose premiums aren't dependent on the irresponsible behaviors of other customers in some arbitrary risk class (which is different from the legitimate creation of risk pools according to criteria acceptable to the clientele). When their rates go up, allegedly because dangerous behavior is on the rise among the company's clients, it is primarily because they were never able to choose a company that wouldn't punish everyone for the failings of the few. For example, if a rash of motorcycle accidents involving helmetless riders causes companies to increase auto insurance rates for all their customers, you are "collaterally" harmed primarily by the fact that you couldn't dissociate your own insurance from that of those who undertake greater risks. The case is even more pronounced for medical insurance, for companies are forced to participate in the socialization of medical care -- again, thanks to the heavy hand of government. If nobody could expect more than cursory emergency care (something that could readily be funded by charities without requiring free treatment – involuntary servitude -- on the part of hospitals) before their care becomes contingent on their personal ability to pay (or raise voluntary support from others), then there would not only be a greater incentive for them to avoid risky behavior, but also a free and natural dissociation between their bad choices and the welfare of innocent parties. "Follow the money" is a good rule of thumb in politics; similarly, "follow the force" works very well when looking for the root causes of harm. Kent Van Cleave [kvc@tima.com] Objectivism and the NIF
"Objectivist political theory argues that a government
is morally necessary and justified. As Ayn Rand argues in "The Nature of
Government," in The Virtue of Selfishness:
If physical force is to be barred from
social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting
their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government
- of a proper government - its basic task, its only justification and the reason
why men do need a government. The Objectivist argument is in the tradition of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Leonard Peikoff
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/mattzwolinski/naturalrights.html As Leonard Peikoff writes, the reduction of rights-violation to the initiation of physical force allows us to grasp rights-violations as "a tangible fact, available in principle to sense perception," rather than by mere "intuition" or "feeling." [5] If we want to know whether the action of an individual, or the policy of a government, violates an individual's right, all we need do is look and see, in essence, who hit who first. Who was the first one to perform the concrete observable act of initiating physical force? http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/philosophyandcontroversy3.asp Rand condemns the initiation of force or the threat of
force in human relationships:
The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships-thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement. Auberon Herbert, like Herbert Spencer and many other
nineteenth-century Liberals, made exactly the same point:
Nobody has the moral right to seek his own advantage by force. That is the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a true society. Whether we are many, or whether we are few, we must learn only to use the weapons of reason, discussion, and persuasion. Part 5: Attempts to Discredit
the NIF Principle
FAQ for Prospective Libertarians
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/libfaq.html
This is a FAQ about the Libertarian Party in the
United States of America.
1. What does "initiation of force" mean? Initiation of force means any use of force that a Libertarian doesn't like, as opposed to "retaliatory force", which Libertarians do like. Libertarians reject initiation of force, but think that retaliatory force is OK. Any use of force can conveniently be defined as either "initiating" or "retaliatory" by restricting the time or other scope of the problem under consideration. For instance, a Libertarian might think:
All you need to do to switch this around is add another, previous step-
and the chain reverses.
Or for another example of Libertarian thinking:
A sizeable minority of Libertarians consider abortion
to be murder and therefore think that a minimalist government would be justified
in punishing it as such. Painted into a Corner
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/bommarito/bommarito7.htmlAnother libertarian dilemma is generated from a basic
principle of libertarianism: the non-aggression axiom. If you're a member of
the Libertarian Party you signed an agreement to abide by it. "We hold
that all individuals . . . have the right to live in whatever manner they choose,
so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others . .
. ."
The key words are "forcibly interfere." Rand forbid we should do that! And I admit to adopting this principle, not as a convenient guideline, but as the moral code that it is. As moral codes go, it's a good one. In fact, if you leave out the first four of the Ten Commandments, you've got them all covered in the non-aggression axiom. Don't lie; don't hurt anyone; don't take anyone's property. There are some words about coveting in the Big Ten, but I never really understood that, despite being a recovering Catholic. Writer L. Neil Smith states the axiom as: "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation . . . ." Smith and his adherents refer to this as the Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP. "Initiation" is the key word and the principle does not constrain the right of an individual to defend himself from force initiated by another. Many libertarian (et al) web sites devote much effort and space to denouncing the ever-increasing initiation of force by the State. One site gives a "jack-booted thug of the month" award. Examples of initiations of force by the State are legion, beginning with the income tax. Since things are so bad, and the State is initiating force against us left and right, by Left and Right, when do we start with this self-defense stuff?
Don't these constitute initiation
of force by the State, which we may rightly defend ourselves against? Apparently
not.
Since we so morally and uprightly subscribe to the non-aggression axiom, we cannot initiate force against the perpetrators of those acts. We can think of a hundred reasons why that would violate the non-aggression axiom. We've painted ourselves into a nice, comfortable, safe, non-initiatory corner http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otj60.htm "To take from one because it is thought that his
own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare
to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill,
is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee
to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
--Thomas Jefferson: Note in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
But, for Jefferson, this principle derives from the rights of property and the just administration of the state, not from the inability of government rightfully to collect taxes and to enforce its decrees. "Our wish... is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. It is the right to property earned and possessed, not the inability of lawful government to compel obedience, that is at issue. It is ludicrous to think that Jefferson would ever have suggested that lawful government, representing the will of a whole people, could be trumped by some imagined right of individuals to be free from coercion. "A spirit of disobedience... must be subdued. Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals. It is very much the good to force the unworthy into their due share of contributions to the public support, otherwise the burden on them will become oppressive, indeed." --Thomas Jefferson to Col. Vanmeter, 1781. To rest the right not to have one's property taken and given to another on a theory that the state has no power to compel its members to make contributions from their earnings for duly approved measures for the common good, is to completely distort the meaning of a free society and ultimately to undermine its authority and its continued existence. Only the most insignificant of organizations could continue to exist if it had no power to require specific contributions from its members. What the "non-initiation of force" means is that a people, coming together to form a nation, establishing the rights and duties that shall exist for themselves, are, by this doctrine, denied their right to govern themselves and to demand of members the duties and other requirements which it decides are necessary for their mutual well-being--species of requirements which even a high-school debating society has the right to determine for itself. This non-initiation of force dogma says that such a people lack the right to enforce those measures they in their wisdom deem necessary for their common good on those rebellious individuals who choose to enjoy the benefits of association in society, but refuse to share the duties and responsibilities for the maintenance of the society. Individual sovereignty means the will of each individual is placed above the sovereign will of a whole nation. Notice that even the staunchest supporters of this doctrine do not deny that government has the power to compel performance; all governments have this power, however it may be used. What they attempt to do is philosophically emasculate their own government and render it incapable of exercising governmental power. Since this power exists in all states of the world, whether for ill or otherwise, the result of such a policy would be to give the enemies of a state--and the most vicious of that breed also--a destructive advantage over one's own country. Thus, this doctrine acts as a Trojan Horse in America, whether intentionally or not. "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law." -- Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," Atlas Shrugged Such a doctrine denies to a people the power to take concerted action
for their common good, except those that protect individuals from the
use of force. It decrees that all such actions outside of such police
protections must be taken by individuals. |
got logic? Auberon
Herbert (1838-1906)
|
| THE BASE | WEB SERVICES | GOODS | CHOICES | THE SUMMIT | |
|
|||||
Contact webmaster at rockroller@mythofsisyphus.net |