[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: On The Non-Aggression Principle A main point that most libertarians agree on is the principle of Non-Aggression, better yet stated as a belief of not initiating violence or harm against others. It is at its core one of the strongest moral principles that one can have and also one of the most misunderstood principles and the ability to not cross into hypocrisy defending it. Those people who advocate violence as a means to peace are in conflict of natural tendencies to remain at peace, voluntary cohabitation, mutual cooperation and the moral philosophy of most practiced religions. There are a growing number of people taking up this principle and as more and more people are confronted with the idea that peace does not require force it becomes needed to put into words what that principle is and what it is not. To differentiate the peaceful alternative to violent means is sometimes a hard pill to swallow and is not the easiest path to take. It does require the utmost character and conviction to handle new ways of dealing with other people in non -violent ways. Too many times to count I have been labeled a pacifist and weak for my belief in this principle, of course most of these times it was in debate of government actions and policies. Let it be said now the idea of not initiating force against another being to obtain ends is not pacifism, it is not a weakness but rather a strength and a moral value worth defending. Many different religions around the world preach and teach this principle in different words. For Christians it is the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have done unto you. So why do so many reject this principle outside of the walls of their religious temples and buildings? Understanding that religion for many stands as a moral basis and a philosophical groundwork one would think the act of aggression would be slight if any in the religious sects of the world. As we have seen this is not the case. From the beginnings of established religions, present and long forgotten, acts which would kill, maim or hurt others have been a central theme. From the Holy wars, Crusades and even into present day Jihads we see this very clearly, the moral basis of religious belief doesn’t connect to the belief in non-aggression. One prevalent argument against Non-Aggression advocates is that the idea is pacifist, weak and ultimately utopian. Those that say the non-aggression principle is pacifist in nature are the most in need of this clarification. If an attack is made against someone who advocates the Non-Aggression principle, that person will defend themselves and their property. It is not pacifism but rather a respect for the rights and property of others that leads in the non- aggression principle. As self-defense is not the initiation of force but the protection from aggression it is in the interest and in accordance with most philosophies of proponents of this belief. Those that lack this respect and induce aggression should be dealt with according to the individual dictates of the victim. What would the world be like without violence, without theft or rape or war? It may be dreaming to imagine a world without these things in it, but why should this be seen as a bad thing. It is those that do not believe in a principled stance against all acts of aggression and violence that have made it necessary for us to dream about this instead of living it. The Non-Aggression principle is a philosophy that respects the rights and property of others. It is a stance to do whatever possible to avoid using violence as a means to ends and rejects the act of initiation of force against all others. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||