'Zero Aggression' is a foundation of ethical behavior
It is a fundamental truth that is is never OK to attack others, nor to take their property away from them against their will. You can not act in this manner and still fulfill your obligation of right conduct. This is "aggression" and is a completely separate matter from "self defense" which is responding to aggression. It matters not if you are doing this strictly on your own, or if you are doing it on behalf of an organization that claims to have the consent of its victims. It doesn't matter if you are wearing jeans and a T-shirt, or a business suit and tie, or a uniform of any kind. It is still absolutely wrong. This is what the ZAP is all about- it illustrates that there is a level playing field and if it is wrong for you to do in this instance, it is also wrong for me to do. There are no extenuating circumstances.
You can not make a subjective estimate of whether it is OK to attack an innocent person or to steal from them. Well, you can try, but you would still be wrong even if you decided it was OK today or under "these circumstances". This is where statists go wrong. Acts that harm the innocent are excused as long as it is "them" who are harmed. And of course, to the statist, being "them" makes a person guilty anyway. This is absurd and contradictory.
It is not a subjective estimate if it harms someone who does not deserve to be harmed right now. It is objectively wrong.
Does this mean that you will always do the right thing? Of course not. Does it mean that you and I will never cause any harm? No. If an action is that important to you, just do it and then attempt to convince others that it was necessary at the time. Imagine tackling an old woman to get her out of the path of a bus. You would probably cause harm to her in the desire to protect her from potentially greater harm. Ask her forgiveness, and if she refuses to give it, make it right or seek arbitration. Do what you feel you must, and if you cause harm, face the music like an adult.
A few months back I reconsidered my stand on the ZAP.
ReplyDeleteLike most absolutes, I've found that there are exceptions. The ZAP only seems to apply when those concerned share cultural norms and can be reasonably expected to "follow the rules." This may apply in 98% of the cases, but the other two percent can be devastating.
I wrote down my thoughts. Here's an excerpt.
-----
But there are exceptions to every rule. Exceptions that you can only invoke at your own peril and at the risk of undoing everything that you believe is right and just. There are times when playing by the rules just invites your own destruction. There are times when certain people game the system, just so no one can honorably oppose their moves.
The Zero Aggression Principle only works as a guideline, not as an absolute.
Depending on circumstances, I'm no longer willing to rule out initiating force. But I'm still smart enough to accept that initiating force could (and probably will) invite total catastrophe.
With apologies to movie purists, "be nice until it's time not to be nice." Tit-for-tat. That's a choice that can only be made by an individual. That's a choice that will always have drastic consequences. Sometimes that's the choice that will support liberty and freedom.
Ultimately, that's the goal, not non-aggression.
-----
You can see the rest at
http://paganvigil.com/C49491493/E20090310142710/index.html
I appreciate the chance to discuss this, other Libertarians and libertarians acted as if I had revealed some secret heresy Which Must Never Ever Be Discussed. I hadn't seen such reactions since I told some of the anthropomorphic global warming crowd that their arguments were based on religion and faith, not science.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a conclusion I arrived at overnight. It was the libertarian ideal that I was proudest of, the one that I thought separated "us" from "them," which is a pretty dangerous mindset in and of itself.
I'm not sure where my doubts first started. Maybe it's when I started taking a harder look at some of the more radical versions of Islam and the results of American intervention in the Middle East. Maybe it was when I read Shelby Steele's excellent _White_Guilt_. It definitely got a major boost from the You Are Not Alone article (the location keeps changing, latest location for part 1 is http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2007/05/21/you-are-not-alone-part-1/
and part 2 is
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2007/05/21/you-are-not-alone-part-2/).
Yes, I know it's Pajamas Media, but this is one piece that is worth your time.
Anyway, my conclusions were fairly straight forward once I had thought it through. If you can trust the other person to stick to the "rules" of civilization, then the ZAP is a winning strategy. If you can't trust him, then the ZAP not only loses but risks your life.
For example, if I borrow money from a bank, I can depend on them sticking to the terms of the contract. They may change the contract later, but it's in their best interest to preserve the rule of law.
I can't depend on a loan shark to do the same.
If I buy aspirin over the counter, I'm pretty sure that it will do what it says it will do. But if I choose black market products, it can't necessarily be trusted. As the late Peter McWilliams pointed out, you've no way of knowing what's inside or how pure it is.
If a person's culture depends on dominance, they will see any attempt at compromise or reconciliation as a sign of weakness and they will press as hard as they can get. Literally, they've no way to appreciate the "civilized" values as values.
I admit it's a judgement call and a very risky one at that. Fortunately the ZAP does hold most of the time.
But I am not willing to treat any idea as an absolute.
I'm writing about some "exceptions" in my Examiner column to be posted late tonight.
ReplyDeleteAre you personally willing to go to the Middle East and kill Muslims because you suspect they may be dangerously radical? My suggestion is to do what you think is right and accept your consequences. I am not willing to do that, but if terrorists (Muslim or US federal) are marching toward my house I will defend myself to my last bullet.
The reason I don't think the examples of black market aspirin or the loan shark are exceptions to ZAP is that no one is forcing you to do business with those you don't trust. Only with government do you often have no "legal" choice. I actually think this is a completely different subject, which is still interesting on its own.
*grins*
ReplyDeleteI admit I kinda threw one at you there. Two actually.
Loan sharks - The last few months have shown the FedGovs seizing more and more control over the financial services sector. It wasn't great to begin with, that's a big part of why we had the mortgage meltdown. There are already signs that the banks and investment firms that were "too big to fail" and were "rescued" by the Federal government are responding to political imperatives rather than anything resembling a free market. There is a very real possibility that soon there may not be any legitimate banks that aren't owned by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. If that happens, the only way to get capital and not jump through all the political hoops is by going to the black market.
I chose aspirin because over the last few years there has been a big push to keep doctors from "over-prescribing" pain meds. Radley Balko has given quite a few examples on his site, TheAgitator.com. What do you do when the only way to get a medical procedure is to break the law?
I may not like dealing with people I can't trust, but it may be the only game in town.
Would I go overseas to stop radical Muslims if I thought they would attack me? No, but then I am not sure they wouldn't "stack the deck" either. If I had my way we wouldn't have any military involvement anywhere else on the globe, the question right now is how do we withdraw without setting off a firestorm? Ideally, we shouldn't be there, but we are, and I don't want to throw lit matches into the gasoline.
Read through all the posts on the objection to ZAP. I may be ignorant or stupid (never count out either) but I do not see any objection listed as an refutation of the idea the it is wrong to INITIATE force against another.
ReplyDeleteThese all seem to be variations of the same idea: but what if someone is doing something bad to me - then is it OK to use force? - which has absolutely nothing to do with the concept at all.
I am still waiting for someone to come up with an objection that is valid.
David- I agree. But for some reason, some people have a very hard time grasping the difference between initiating force, and responding to force. I'm writing yet another column on the subject. Not sure when it will post because I don't know how long it will take me to finish it.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that seems to be missed - often: that something is wrong does not negate the idea that you may do it anyway (something you've been pointing out lately.)
ReplyDeletePeople seem to jump to a strange conclusion - the idea of ZAP somehow indicates that those of us who hold it to be a universal principle also seem to be naïvely certain that if it really were a universal principle, no one would ever do it. Such a silly notion! The idea that rape is morally wrong seems to be a universal principle: but that doesn't stop evil people from raping....