There are some who seem to be confused about what the Non-Aggression Principle really says. Or they’re just being dense. Either way, the name of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is being dragged through the mud and put on trial in a court of public opinion in certain spheres of the Net.
Far be it for me to allow this to go on without providing a legal defense.
Therefore, as counsel for the defendant, libertarianism, I would like to give the opening remarks on this case.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, lend me your ears. Now, let me direct attention to what the prosecution has had to say.
A Defense of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism
No, it is not called the “Non-Violence Principle.” Either you’ve got an agenda and want it to mean that, or you’re confused about the meaning of aggression and coercion . Get a dictionary.
No, it does not teach that “no one may initiate violence against anyone, even to defend themselves from violence.” If someone tries to shoot me I can shoot back. If they try to steal or trespass I have every right to use violence to defend my property. We’ll get to indirect state violence in a moment.
The NAP says you and I have the exact same rights and nobody has the right to take away someone else’s rights without just cause. The door swings both ways, not just one way. Keep that in mind.
No, the NAP is not a moral code that only applies to those who believe in its principles. It applies to everyone, not selective groups. Coercion and aggression is wrong, no matter what you think you have the authority to do. That someone else refers to the color blue by another name, or thinks it doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it a different color or nonexistent.
No, the NAP doesn’t say that “libertarians have to tolerate state violence but they can’t use state violence themselves even if out of self-preservation.” Those who use state violence have surrendered all right to complain when it’s used against them in return. No one, including other libertarians, has the moral authority to tell us how or what we can do to get the state out of lives, or that we look out for our self-interests before that of others.
This is not an altruist golf club, and we’re not your caddy.
If someone insists on taxing me, I have the right to control as much as possible how that money is spent and vote for whoever I want to represent me, as flawed as their representation will be, to decide what to do with the money. If someone thinks anyone should be allowed to enter my jurisdiction and steal from me through the state or violate my rights through the voting process, I have the right to control who the state allows into that jurisdiction in order to mitigate the damage to my liberties.
Don’t like it? Then find a way to get the state to stop stealing from me and stop violating my rights. Don’t like state borders? Find a way to get rid of the welfare state and the democratic process that turns immigrants into invaders. Don’t like being oppressed by someone else’s preferred candidate? Provide people with a better choice than having to decide between oppressing or oppressing.
When you’ve got those solutions all worked out let me know and then we can discuss the rest.
Don’t like people “fashing“? You gave up your right to complain if you supported or were indifferent to the state forcing cultural Marxism down our throats. Pull the log of state violence out of your own eye before you complain about reactionary speck in their eye.
No, the NAP doesn’t create double standards that force some libertarians to adhere to the NAP all the time while others can adhere to it when it fits their version of The Vision or when it’s fashionable for their statist friends at the trendy social circle they’re trying to impress. Contrary to what you may think, you’re not a precious, special snowflake, the rules apply to you just as much, and if you don’t like that you can pound sand or return to your vomit.
The NAP says that you get to do what you want with yourself and your property. It doesn’t say I have to support it, like it, endorse it, praise it, accept it. This means I can say things that offend you or withhold my property to you while giving it to others and call you a cuck when you try to defend actions and ideas that are self-destructive to your own beliefs. This means I can argue in favor of legalized prostitution and drugs while calling those who engage in both a crack whore and mock girls who dress like one, all without contradicting myself. Is that shaming? Sure, but again, Non-Aggression Principle, my dear, not “Non-Offending Principle.” If you’re looking for a slut sash to go with that white knight pedestalization, you’ll find it in the progressive ideology department on the far left (hehehehe).
The NAP doesn’t hinder libertarians; it empowers us by giving us justification to violently resist the state and defend our property rights. It’s not a political system or a religion. A stateless society would be nice, but at the end of the day we’ll take what we can get, and if it just has the feds follow the Constitution without having to get into a civil war that would be more than anything we’ve accomplished in 100 years. We’re not failures, and our philosophy isn’t flawed, just because the state continues to exist. The philosophy only tells the truth, what is, not what should be. If there’s failure, it’s been the movement’s decision to entrust the truth with liars.
The NAP is not a pacifist creed, it’s not an indirect form of controlled opposition, it’s not a cuckold philosophy, and it’s not a suicide pact. And we’re sure as hell not going to let anyone hamstring us by deliberately misapplying the NAP to real-life situations so that we have to stand there and let ourselves be abused by the state under the pretense that it’s necessary or even libertarian when in actuality it’s so their favored group benefits or doesn’t endure state coercion. When I took the libertarian red pill it only came with the NAP; I didn’t also swallow a pill encapsulating beliefs, attitudes and values detached from objective reality and ultimately contradictory to libertarianism’s anti-state stance.
As you can see, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, many of the smears, stereotypes, and accusations about libertarian philosophy are both erroneous and misleading.
The defense rests its case, your honor.