Sunday afternoon moral considerations


Examining the Zero Aggression Principle
On this blog I have made a pretty strong argument for individual action linked to individual responsibility. Those are important ideas to be sure, but they are only part of what makes up my personal libertarian philosophy. The big part that I haven't talked about lately is the Zero Aggression Principle. Roughly speaking, the ZAP comes down to a few simple words. My favorite version is Thou Shalt Not Initiate Force.

It's probably the only Shalt Not I have paid attention to in years.

It's a good moral guide and very flexible. It's the underlying assumption in a free market, the VOLUNTARY exchange of goods and services. I talk about it very briefly in the FAQ for this site.

If someone is coerced, then it isn't a voluntary exchange anymore. That is why the free market is such a good idea, choice beats coercion every time. It's also why property rights and the uniform rule of law are the foundation for our civilization. It keeps us honest.

Some libertarians have used the ZAP as the justification for condemning the Iraq War. It's a strong argument. I'll get back to that in a bit.

As with most moral principles, the challenge is at the fringe. For example, do you take preemptive action to protect a child? What about an invalid? Or someone who is incapable of making a choice? That's the problem with morals, it's never the direct questions that get you into trouble, it's the "iffy" ones.

Simple question, if someone chooses for moral reasons not to act in their own self-defense, should you act for them? You can see how this particular question ties into both gun control and the power of the state. Without EXTRAORDINARY care, it also goes straight to the heart of individual action and individual responsibility. I really want to stress that.

The world isn't black and white, no matter how much we wish otherwise.

Acting for someone else can threaten both their choice and their responsibility. In a very real way, it's saying that you are exempting them from being fully human.

Liberty demands choice. Liberty demands responsibility. And liberty demands more than black and white answers to complex questions. Sometimes you have to grit your teeth and do the best that you can with what you have.

Here is the second part of the problem. What if not everyone plays by the rules?

It's one thing if I agree I am not going to barge into your living room and take your computer, but that does you no good if the guy from across the street smashes your window and runs off with that same computer. Or if a gal from three states over with a black belt and a pump action shotgun demands the same computer.

Am I obligated to defend you and your property from these people? Even if they do not recognize the obligation OR property rights or the ZAP?

Let's go one step further. What if you insisted that only Properly Designated Agents of the State were allowed to defend you and your property? What's more, you believed that just by carrying a weapon and living next door to you, I was a threat to your freedom?

What if the Properly Designated Agents of the State broke down your door and took your computer at three a.m.?

What if the politicos demanded that since only Properly Designated Agents of the State needed to be armed, I had to give up mine. And then someone who didn't pay attention to that rule got a gun and started shooting people. Should I defend the choice to disarm people? Even if it's for the "Greater Good?"

What if I said that it might be a good thing if more people besides the Properly Designated Agents of the State were armed because it might discourage random shootings if other people could shoot back?

Still with me? Good, because it gets more complicated yet.

Let's say that my Uncle Sam was worried about the residents of the next big city who cared nothing about individual rights, especially not property rights. To keep them at bay, he made sure that the leadership of the little towns between here and there were heavily armed, even if they did not recognize individual rights. That way, not everyone at home would have to be armed and we would have advance notice if the mob from the next big city started moving our way.

Then if the next big city had a (sort of) new government, but the people of those little towns were asking for help to get out from under the leadership Uncle Sam helped saddle them with, do we help?

What preemptive action can I take then? Should I take any?

How can I dig out of the moral morass?

Is there anything I can do with the Zero Aggression Principle BEFORE rights and the uniform rule of law is established in those little towns?

That is the only justification I see for Iraq and the War on Terror. To contain the USSR, we armed tyrants and looked the other way when they deprived their people of rights.

There aren't easy answers here. Maybe we need to focus on the world we want rather than despairing of the one we are in.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sun - May 13, 2007 at 02:43 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved