6 votes

Should Libertarians Use Violence?

Is Violence An Option?

"[...] libertarians also tend to believe strongly in the right to self-defense, and do not preclude the use of violent action entirely. Since the focus is on non-aggression, as opposed to non-violence, one would be morally justified in disarming an attacker, even if it meant injuring or killing them in the process.

This is where many questions arise. What should be considered 'aggression,' and is a forceful response appropriate?"



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Paragraph one is absolute rubbish.

Speaking only as a linguist of course.

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

jrd3820's picture

What about Paragraph 2 though


Defensive force is absolutely legitimate...

and if someone is using aggresive force against you, it is unwise not to defend yourself.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

jrd3820's picture


This is the most important part of the article to me.

“If enough people can be convinced that personal liberty is preferable to statism, or become disengaged with the government apparatus, then that state will quickly lose its air of legitimacy, and collapse. People must voluntarily withdraw their consent from the state, become independent of its services, and pay as little into its coffers, both monetarily and morally, as one can get away with. Forming cohesive communities, providing for one’s own defense, and teaching the Non-Aggression Principle to the young and uninitiated will spell the end of the state. Once people know their value as individuals, and their potential, those who run the state’s machinery and enforce its laws would cease to show up for work.”

This is what I have spent years working on; helping others realize their power to be an individual and not rely on the state while simultaneously working on my own situation and removing myself from financially supporting the state and or needing support from them.
You will never find me advocating violence of any means, but as the article points out there is a huge difference between violence and defense.

The article also states, “Violence must be seen only as a final, desperate option, once all others have been exhausted.” That is where the lines can get blurry. How does one decide all other options have been exhausted? Who makes that call? I mean, I am still relatively young and while I have been working on this for quite a few years, there are people who have been at this fight for 20,30,40+ years. Sometimes I get frustrated and think all options have been exhausted (not that I think the next best choice is violence, I am non aggressive to a fault), but imagine those people…. Maybe they already think all options have been exhausted? And if that is the case…well, then what?