The LP: is it time for a purge?

Posted May 5th, 2008 by atrickpay

I thought this was great! Came across it today at LRC:

the first priority of any real libertarian is to ensure everybody knows and thoroughly understands that anyone who refuses to take the Zero Aggression Principle seriously, as the central, indispensable tenet of the movement—or in the case of the LP, to take the oath of zero aggression—should not be regarded as a libertarian at all, but just another thug reserving a right he mistakenly imagines he has to initiate force against his fellow human beings whenever he finds it convenient.

... if this sort of ugly struggle is to be avoided, what needs to be done—and immediately—is for the LP board of directors to hand Cory and Davis their walking papers, and then to publicly retract and apologize for their original anti-libertarian statement. If the board fails with regard to principal in this affair, they, too, should be replaced, at the upcoming national convention in Denver.

To that end, THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE is asking you to join us in rectifying this sorry situation. We will shortly have an online petition up. Check back for it, look it over, and add your name to those demanding what's right.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

output

Can't do it on principle

On May 5th, 2008 zbalac says:

I know what the author of this post is trying to say - there are libertarians who believe in pre-emptive war, warrantless wiretapping, the welfare state, and so on. I do agree that those people are missing a key tenet of libertarianism. I agree that by accepting those types of "libertarians" we water down the party principles and become no better than the other major parties - sacrificing principle for power in numbers. But I do not believe that a pledge to the zero-aggression principle is the answer.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist in the spirit of David Friedman and other consequentialists. While I admire Rothbard et al, and I understand the deontological stance for the non-aggression principle, I cannot make a pledge to it because of its absolutism. I reserve the right to initiate aggression in very select few instances - but I also believe most adherents to the "non-aggression" principle do as well, they're just not honest with themselves.

Also, there are other problems with the absolutism of the non-aggression principle that force adherents to square the circle to make the argument fit. Who decides what is aggression? If my cigarette smoke ventures over to your property, did i violate your airspace? how many ppm is required for it to be aggression? who gets to decide?

I agree with the spirit of the original poster, and I do agree that deontological and consequentialist intepretations of libertarianism are 99% in sync, but I just wanted to be difficult by making a technical argument :)

Principle or no principle - with few exceptions, if people just minded their own business, the world would be a better place.

DDF + cigarettes

On May 5th, 2008 atrickpay says:

a)Cool, I just read David's book, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism last month!

b)Re: reserving the right to use aggression in a "very select few instances," could you give some examples?

c)On the subject of the cigarette smoke, off the top of my head I'm not sure what the answer to that conundrum is! But, I'm sure people have attempted to tackle this specific problem, and who knows, maybe somebody even resolved it.

Required reading

On May 5th, 2008 zbalac says:

a) - It's great, isn't it? it should be required reading for every libertarian. period.

b) - It's hard to come up with examples, since my objection to the zero-aggression principle is theoretical in nature (refusing to tie myself down with absolutes) - but i would steal from someone wealthy to feed myself if i were on the verge of starvation after having exhausted every other alternative. But i wouldn't steal from someone to buy a new ipod. How that line is drawn would require a LOT more explanation. But the takeaway here is that I subscribe to a "nearly-zero aggression principle." Like "limit x as x approaches zero - aggression principle". I just don't want someone misinterpreting my point.

c) - There are certain things that are intuitively obvious acts of "aggression." Me punching you in the face for no reason is almost universally recognized as aggression. But it's only universal since effectively 100% of people recognize it as such. Also, there's a bright line - either I hit you or I don't.

Now, with cigarette smoke, there isn't that bright line - if you tried to impose one, you can't smoke 1000 ft. from any property that wasn't yours in case a single particle of chemical dissipated into someone's air. (assuming property rights to air are assigned.)

So, now we need someone to decide at what point is it aggression? do i need to come up with a separate contract with every other person to get their permission to potentially pollute their air?

Naturally two well-intentioned libertarians, both of whom believe in the non-aggression principle will disagree as to WHAT constitutes aggression (not THAT aggression should be avoided). And the ONLY solution to that dilemma is that SOMEONE must initiate force against the other person (as interpreted by that other person).

example 1: Person A is stronger and prevents Person B from emitting X amount of smoke. B claims that A is aggressing against him by preventing him.
example 2: Person B is stonger and emits X amount of smoke, feeling he is not aggressing. Person A interprets this as aggression.

Neither person believes it's ok to aggress. BUT someone will feel aggression. To enforce any interpretation of aggression, especially in ambiguous situations, requires an initiation of force.