New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to Register for free to join our community?

Why non-aggression doesn't work


Council Member
In theory, the non-aggression principle is good - but in practice, it is impossible to completely eliminate aggression. Similar to Marxism, it would only "work" if a small group of people did so voluntarily.

For example, speaking in a public place, or using "fighting words" on the internet, "aggresses" against people without their consent, so to a "non-aggression" advocate, there would be no difference in doing this or in shooting a person with a gun. Even if one lived like a monk, and rejected all forms of violence and worldly attachments - at best, they could minimize aggression, but never eliminate it.

Likewise, America's system of government, as well as the governmental systems which it evolved from - was founded on "aggression", and was never an anarchy, regardless of what revisionists imagine, nor was it against "taxation", but merely taxation without representation.

If a non-aggression advocate had lived during the time of the nation's founding, he or she would have had to oppose the Revolution and opt out of it altogether, on the grounds that participating in violence is wrong, so there never would have been any "America".

In practice, "non-aggression" advocates use aggression as a means of advocating their worldview, so to me this is living proof that it doesn't work - the equivalent of a member of PETA chanting that "meat is murder", and throwing fake blood on an innocent bystander for wearing a leather jacket.