Hey Cool: Libertarian Pacificim

[infrogmation]

I came across a short article which gave me one of those "Hey, that's pretty much what I've believed for a long time, only said better!" moments.

It turns out that there is a branch of Libertarianism that's basically Pacifist.

Working from a non-agression principle they arive at this conclusion; basically that just defensive war might arguably be hypothetically possible, but given how modern wars are actually fought in reality the likelyhood is pretty close to nil.

I wish I'd seen that years ago when I was discussing my beliefs on usenet in threads started by articles like this one or this.

Comments

[ex-corax898.livejournal.com]

As a libertarian, I believe that one should never initiate force or fraud against another person. Having stated that however, I do not believe that defending one's self or retaliating against the initiation of force by another is immoral.

In the state of nature, the libertarian pacifist ends up lying dead on the ground. Let's suppose that you an one other person are the sole inhabitants of a desert island. You and the other guy live on your respective sides of the island and each have your own land and possessions. For him to initiate force against you in an attempt to steal your land or possessions would be immoral, just as it would be if you tried to do the same things against him. However, defending yourself against his assault or tracking him down and killing him when he runs away ( in order to prevent further assualts on your person) is not immoral. In the state of nature, you either defend yourself, retaliate, or die.

Let's intorduce a third inhabitant of the island who happens to live with you. If you are willing to assume sole responsibility for defending your side of the island, then the extra man has the luxury of advocating libertarian pacifism. The moment you refuse (or are killed trying) to protect him and his belongings, then he must either renounce his pacifism or forfeit his life and posessions. No other options exist.

I have no problem with any pacifist libertarian who truly believes that he is morally obligated to let anyone who may decide to kill him, steal his property and rape his wife, do so without resistance or fear of retaliation. If such a person is willing to face the consequences of his actions, then so be it. However, I think most pacifists libertarians would readily defend themselves in the state of nature; in society, their position is a luxury which they are able to consistently advocate only because there are other who are willing to protect them.

War is not the same thing as agression between individuals

[infrogmation.livejournal.com]

"As a libertarian, I believe that one should never initiate force or fraud against another person. "

Agree.

"Having stated that however, I do not believe that defending one's self or retaliating against the initiation of force by another is immoral."

Agree again.

"In the state of nature, the libertarian pacifist ends up lying dead on the ground. [...hypothetical stories...] I have no problem with any pacifist libertarian who truly believes that he is morally obligated to let anyone who may decide to kill him, steal his property and rape his wife, do so without resistance or fear of retaliation."

Whoa there.
You're working from mistaken assumptions of what I'm argueing (as you would have found out if you'd looked through the Usenet threads I linked to).
Pacifisim does not equal Passivism.
I do not advocate non-resistance to attack by criminals. Nor do I think that one individual responding to attack by another individual is an appropriate metaphor for war between nations.

In my opinion, war (at least in it's modern forms) is a particular kind of violence practiced by governments that by it's very nature has a strong tendancy to direct force against many individuals who had no part in creating the situation.

Look at my two articles linked above, and if you have some questions that may be obvious check the threads from those articles for my followups.

I'm very willing to defend what I believe, but I'm not going to argue about some inaccurate missconception of it.

Cheers, -- F.

Note:

[infrogmation.livejournal.com]

Had some further discussion on this subject over on corax's journal, at:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=10545714&

and

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=12010542&view=15398905#t15398905