I haven’t finished reading the introductions but the first introduction made the claim it was the most important book I’d ever read. Other readers have said much the same.

“But from a moral standpoint of eliminating violence (I agree that violence is written into the code, more properly expressed as “control”), the only way to eliminate violence is to cease to practice it.”

That isn’t true. It might be true if all homo sapiens were human beings, but there is a small fraction that are not human beings. Current labels for these monsters are “sociopaths” and “psychopaths”. A subset of these people as well as a subset of human beings are naturally prone to violence. Human beings could be trained not to be violent, or they might not be violent if the world didn’t mess with their heads so much. Naturally violent naturally born sociopaths are always going to be violent.

One way others put it is that there are three type of people: sheeple, wolves, and sheepdogs. Sociopaths/psychopaths are the wolves. Sheeple are “the masses” which I believe are a product manufactured from human beings by the wolves who control our world. Sheepdogs are those who naturally go after the wolves to protect the sheeple. By this metaphor I would be a sheepdog, but I would actually add a fourth category: farmers. I’d like to cultivate sheeple/people and sheepdogs while fighting the wolves.

I recently began to read a little known but highly acclaimed book, “Political Ponerology” It’s available on Amazon for or if you email me at my screen name @ gmail . com I’ll send a copy along when I get to it. It’s also available at Demonoid.com if you have a membership.

“The ultimate question is where does the authority to practice defensive violence reside? Anarchists like you and I believe it rests in the individual, statists believe an unaccountable superagency drawn from the same pool of imperfect individuals have the sole authority.”

I wouldn’t say it lies in the authority of the individual. The authority of the individual only applies to the individual and their property and those individuals who are involved in a mutually consensual action with in the bounds of the contract between them.

The authority lies in the nature of the situation, the natures of the two parties, and the nature of the types of interaction between them. If there is an offender who uses violence against a victim, then by the nature of that the victim has a natural right to defend themselves against the offender.

That assumes though that the interaction takes place in “civilization”. Outside of the bounds of civilization then the law of the jungle “Might makes right” would apply.

I think my greatest achievement yet was summarizing the natural law/God’s law in only two words:

NO STEALING

It’s a lot easier to say and remember than the standard libertarian non-aggression principle, and it more naturally prohibits stealing via fraud. Any “law” or action that is not in accordance with that supreme law is not a law anywhere there is civilization.

“You touch on many cogent reasons why statists believe the way they do — it is belief, not thought. That is the strength of the anarchist — anarchism can only be arrived at through conscious reasoning, where statism is a mystical revealed religion.”

Indeed. I had a thought strike me today that statism (and other false religions) and other forms of collectivism are created by grown adults playing pretend. I played that game in a variety of ways as a child, where one person makes up something and the other people go with that and make up something …repeat until the child grows up…which is an increasingly uncommon event at least here in America in 2010. The remarkable increase in lifespans that is so widely remarked upon has been matched by a much greater decrease in maturity.

The more I think about it the more it makes sense. I work in the food service industry. At my job I had that realization, these people are just playing pretend restaurant as I did when I was 7 and 8. Watching Gorden Ramseys Kitchen Nightmares last night – an owner of a restaurant bought all of the ingredients for the restaurant at the supermarket. The retail supermarket. That’s what a little kid playing would do, because they wouldn’t know any better. The same is true of doctors, shrinks especially, scientists, cops, businessmen, teachers, professors, politicians – all a bunch of artificially retarded adults with the intelligence of children – but with enough training to run the world. That’s why the world is such a scary place – particularly because usually the only people who understand the situation are the wolves.

“It is always a pleasure to discover thinkers like yourself, Henry. There are a few that post here. One named Steve Jean is another. I look forward to your future comments and the unwavering logic contained therein.”

Thank you much. Much obliged for the discourse.

In making the case for pacifism, I only state the logical extreme of anti-violence to set the boundary of morality. Yes, from an individual perspective, pacifism is so contrary to the survival instinct as to render it impractical from a biological standpoint. This alone justifies the use of defensive violence. But from a moral standpoint of eliminating violence (I agree that violence is written into the code, more properly expressed as “control”), the only way to eliminate violence is to cease to practice it.

The ultimate question is where does the authority to practice defensive violence reside? Anarchists like you and I believe it rests in the individual, statists believe an unaccountable superagency drawn from the same pool of imperfect individuals have the sole authority.

You touch on many cogent reasons why statists believe the way they do — it is belief, not thought. That is the strength of the anarchist — anarchism can only be arrived at through conscious reasoning, where statism is a mystical revealed religion.

It is always a pleasure to discover thinkers like yourself, Henry. There are a few that post here. One named Steve Jean is another. I look forward to your future comments and the unwavering logic contained therein.

Our collective humanity? Only the collectivists lose their humanity – I and other individuals fully retain ours. Mr. Balko – wholly reject statism and it’s crimes and you can reclaim your own humanity and individuality.

Wow. That is a hell of a statement. I have, can, do, and will question that outcome – it isn’t positive from any non-state perspective so far as I can see. When one evil empire conquers another evil empire – that is a negative negating another negative. If the Crips defeat the Bloods that is not a positive outcome – and saying that it is an unquestioningly positive outcome is absurd.

Abstaining from using defensive violence to thwart offensive violence is a means of encouraging offensive violence. The perfect moral case is abstention from offensive violence and from pacifism. There is no way to remove violence from human interaction – pacifism is nothing more than a fantasy.

With regards to the Pacific campaign of WWII- first, we failed to use defensive violence to thwart the Pearl Harbor attack, and secondly we used offensive violence to attack the Japanese empire. Two wrongs don’t make a right and three wrongs also don’t make a right.

Guy breaks into your house and shoots your wife – it is legitimate and just to shoot him in defense of your wife and yourself and your house. Stand there and do nothing and wait for him to leave and then go over to his house and shoot his wife – that is not legitimate or just in any way.

No real libertarian would ever agree that murdering people for power and profit is legitimate or just.

“I’m generally anti-war. But spare me the revisionist history. The Japanese empire was evil.”

So was the fledging American empire. You are revising history when you demonize the Japanese empire and glorify the American one.

“Really? That’s what you get from this site? Pro-war nationalism?

What site have you been reading? Please go back to reading it.

We require some basic reading comprehension here.”

That poster was correct. You are advocating pro-war nationalism. It was not a reading comprehension error on their part – it was a logical and moral consistency error on your part. When you make pro-war statements in favor of one nation – then yes, you are supporting pro-war nationalism.

“Cynical, I’m not calling the all these folks statists, particularlly Balko.”

I’ll call Mr. Balko a statist – because he is a statist. The current development of the police state that Mr. Balko specializes in documenting is a direct descendant of the war state he supports. He supports the cause of the effects he opposes, and thus is a hypocrite. Is it his fault? Sure, in the sense that we are all responsible for ourselves, but there are many other factors that explain his hypocrisy. He was most surely indoctrinated in his school days with his current views, and his time in college most surely failed to expose him to contrary views or to a wider grasp of history or to a deeper understanding of human action. Since that time he has specialized in what he got his degree in – and outside of the very narrow bounds of his specialty he is quite lost. He also spends his time either with his colleagues and their ilk, few of whom are pure libertarians and none of whom probably have the time or means to discuss the wide and deep scope of knowledge needed to understand the incredibly complicated history and nature of the state, and in his free time he watches popular media programs such as “American Idol” and the program that is the reason for this particular post – none of which is going to challenge his statism.

Perhaps in time he will be exposed to more sources of history and to thought provoking arguments. Otherwise I do believe the positive effects of his anti-statism shall outweigh the negative effects of his pro-statism – although the former would certainly be far more formidable and effective if he was to overcome the latter.

“we’ll grab a pint and hash …” You bring the pint, I’ll bring the hash. ;-)

I also note that I have an admirer. Keep the down-arrows coming. I use them as fuel for my future posts.

I respect your principles Lucy. But I do view anarchy/statism as a switch. There’s no such thing as a little statism. One either believes that violence is an appropriate mechanism for resolving human conflict or one does not. The moment one endorses the most minimal initiation of violence, one has declared oneself a statist.

That being said, I don’t want to label anyone, but your arguments have a strong anarchist flavor and bring a nice counterbalance to the milquetoast statism that dominates this and just about every other libertarian site on the web.

It’s the truth that matters. Better to know something by its true name than deceive oneself.

My pleasure, Capitalist.

“Suppose ten people are stranded on an island. 9 of the 10 completely embrace a prohibition on the initiation of force against others, and live peacefully. The tenth, let’s call him Jack (thanks Lost) declares himself to be in charge and begins demanding 10% of everyone’s property to sustain himself (if only taxes were so low).”

First, each individual is responsible for his/her own self-defense. Given your parameters, I see no mechanism for Jack to enforce his claim on 10% of the property of the remaining 9. Does he have a technological or some other advantage? Even if he could overpower each individually, the 9 could ally themselves and would presumably be able to thwart Jack’s evil designs.

“The other 9 try to convince him of the error of his ways, but he won’t listen and continues to rob them of 10% of their property.”

Anarchy means being an individual political sovereign and respecting all individuals as political sovereigns. Jack’s attempt to extract taxes is an initiation of force, and as such, can be met with resistance. There are means of resistance besides violence, such as ostracism, defensive contracts, walls, moral suasion, etc. If Jack’s level of force rises to physical violence, then each individual must decide whether to defend himself with physical violence. While pacifism is the only morally pure course of action, I cannot condemn an individual for violently resisting aggression, even though it perpetuates the violence.

“One gentleman, let’s call him Hurley, finally refuses to pay. Jack beats him to death with a rock while Hurley makes no attempt to stop him or at least fails to deflect the blows. Jack then steals all his property and goes on his merry way.”

Well, that’s murder. The others may now ostracize Jack and give fair warning to him that his presence among them will result in the assumption that he means them harm. If Jack does not heed the warning, then the remaining 8 may take all necessary steps to defend themselves from him. This covers the remaining two examples you provided. By murdering, Jack has separated himself from the group permanently. The others may act according to conscience alone if he refuses to remove himself.

“So, which of the characters behaved admirably? Morally?”

The perfect moral case is abstention from violence in all cases (pacifism). This is the only way to remove violence from human interaction. Of course, it is entirely possible that violence is a core characteristic of humans and can never be eliminated. In that case, the non-aggression principle is the next stop from pacifism to anarchism. This concerns the initiation of force, such that defensive violence is morally permissible.

An interesting answer to your question is that as long as each individual is freely deciding according to his/her own conscience how to react to Jack’s initiation of violence, then each answer is morally correct, even killing Jack. In a just society with a legal system interested in truth only, any of these courses of action would be judged by all the individuals concerned as to their appropriateness, especially regarding the initiation of violence — e.g., if imprisoning him made more sense than killing him. Overstepping in retaliatory violence could lead the others to view the retaliator as a new threat.

The quality this system would have is to make the resort to violence an extremely grave decision that could carry lifetime effects even for the retaliator. I find this interesting.

“Even if its immoral to kill or imprison him, aren’t these responses effective?”

As a rule, I don’t go in for utilitarian arguments. Anything can be justified on utilitarian grounds. It’s far more interesting to discuss morality, for everything flows from morality. The reason the world is the way it is today is because morality has been neglected in favor of utilitarianism.

“Don’t they end the violence without precipitating more?”

It’s important to keep terms constant. Violence doesn’t just refer to physical harm or killing — any restraint on an individual’s freedom of action is violence. Thus, in your very first example, Jack’s demand for 10% from his victims is an initiation of violence and worthy of a strong response from his victims. Imprisoning Jack without killing him is violent as well, but as a response to his initiation, it is morally permissible at the individual level. At the societal level, there may be disagreements and it may fracture the society, possibly irreparably, but as long as the truth is discovered and the individuals are acting freely, then any result is acceptable.

There are volumes written about this subject Capitalist, please search the non-aggression principle and the morality of violence for more perspectives. Thanks for an interesting thought exercise.

Nevertheless, I’ve still never heard a good argument against the aforementioned. So if that makes me an anarchist, so be it.

I’m assuming my fellow freedom fans don’t condone the WWII draft, do they?

Joe, why are we thanking them? Because our moron president sent them to Iraq? Because they signed up for a career that requires a great deal of obedience? Some of them are brave, good people. But they’re not all fighting for us or freedom. Everything is more complicated than that.

I know most of those WWII vets are gone now, but I thank them for their service. And of course, without forgetting that some of our troops are experiencing their own slice of this hell now in multiple tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank them too.

Right on. Odd that we’re all commenting on this one particular thread. Perhaps this question just highlights these differences in libertarian thought. Interesting.

“I say that waging war to overthrow an oppressive state is a continuation of war. Violence can never end violence, it only perpetuates it. In other words, overthrow the oppressive state by violent means and a new oppressive state will rise in its place. Witness WWII.”
-Cynical in CA

Please allow me a thought experiment to help me understand your view (no intention of trashing it). Suppose ten people are stranded on an island. 9 of the 10 completely embrace a prohibition on the initiation of force against others, and live peacefully. The tenth, let’s call him Jack (thanks Lost) declares himself to be in charge and begins demanding 10% of everyone’s property to sustain himself (if only taxes were so low). The other 9 try to convince him of the error of his ways, but he won’t listen and continues to rob them of 10% of their property.

One gentleman, let’s call him Hurley, finally refuses to pay. Jack beats him to death with a rock while Hurley makes no attempt to stop him or at least fails to deflect the blows. Jack then steals all his property and goes on his merry way.

The next woman, let’s call her Sun, refuses to pay and avoids the beating by trapping Jack in a cave. She sustains him with food but keeps him imprisoned for several weeks, but he eventually escapes and resumes his antics.

Finally, another gentleman named Sawyer gets fed up with things, refuses to pay, and throws Jack off a cliff. Good riddance.

So, which of the characters behaved admirably? Morally? Disregard the cave escape part (it was for narrative purposes) and assume Sun can successfully imprison him indefinitely. I realize this doesn’t equate perfectly to overthrowing an oppressive state. I’m more interested in hearing your views on each characters’ use/nonuse of retaliatory violence. Is it okay to kill him? Is it okay to imprison him? Even if its immoral to kill or imprison him, aren’t these responses effective? Don’t they end the violence without precipitating more? I appreciate you indulging my curiosity.

Of course, a slight bit of cultural sensitivity might have made quite a difference. “Unconditional surrender” was good policy for Nazi Germany; the Germans generally understood what we would and would not do as conquerors (we might hang some, but there’d be nothing like the Bataan Death March – or Buchenwald). To the Japanese, it meant something else – as illustrated in Bataan – and they might have negotiated a deal far worse than what we finally did, but they weren’t going to surrender without some kind of deal until they were convinced that resistance was entirely futile. Hiroshima and Nagasaki might well have been the minimum convincers…

Hooray!!! That makes about five of us on this one little website! We’re gaining on you, statists!

Great post Lucy. It never ceases to amaze me how certain adults can’t grasp concepts that a five-year-old would understand (all war is evil).

I say that waging war to overthrow an oppressive state is a continuation of war. Violence can never end violence, it only perpetuates it. In other words, overthrow the oppressive state by violent means and a new oppressive state will rise in its place. Witness WWII.

Unless and until individuals regain control over their own lives and cooperate with their neighbors, perpetual war is the future of humanity.