One of the foundational tenants of modern libertarianism is
the non-aggression principle, defined by the brilliant political philosopher
Murray Rothbard in his book For a New
Liberty as "[the] central axiom...that no man or group of men may
aggress against the person or property of anyone else, "aggression"
being understood to mean "the initiation of the use or threat of
physical violence" against someone or their property. This is the central principle of
libertarianism (at least principled libertarianism in the vein of Rothbard) and
the axiom on which most libertarian philosophy rests, for principled political
philosophies are necessarily founded upon ethics.
So it might be a bit of a surprise that
I, a Rothbardian, anti-state, anti-taxation, anarchist libertarian, cannot
fully affirm the non-aggression principle.
Yes, this ethical axiom, one at first
glance so flawless and irrefutable, seemingly so essential to my political
philosophy, is one to which I cannot subscribe.
This puts me at odds with many of my fellow libertarians, not only with
regard to an important tenant of the philosophy but to its foundation principle. This does not mean that I do not value it,
for on the whole the principle tends to promote good ethical decision making,
but I cannot accept it as a universal axiom.
In short, to paraphrase Pirates of
the Caribbean, the non-aggression principle is more of a guideline.
Despite its simplicity and elegance,
its practicality, and its general applicability, the non-aggression axiom
simply fails to take into account the complex nature of ethics in both
principle and practice, unable to explain the pull of conscience and moral law
as well as the way in which humans actually make ethical decisions. To illustrate this, an example may be
helpful:
Imagine that you and a buddy are hiking
a remote mountain trail. You are close
to the end of your hike, which is good because you are running out of
supplies. Your food and water has run
out completely, but your partner still has half of a water bottle left. Fortunately you had a snack and a good drink
shortly beforehand, so you both should be fine for the rest of the hike. Suddenly you spot a man lying face-down
beside the trail. You run up to him, and
it is obvious that he has been lost and has collapsed due to exhaustion and
dehydration. He is conscious and
breathing, but barely. This man needs
help immediately, and the most urgent matter is to get him a drink of
water. Your partner, however, is a
misanthropic nihilist jerk and refuses to give the man a drink.
Is it ethical to forcibly take the
water from your companion? To do so is
to aggress against his property, and also to aggress against his person if he
chooses to physically resist. But if the
man in trouble cannot get water immediately, he will die. In this situation, to apply the
non-aggression principle is to let a man die needlessly, all for the sake of
someone's claim over half a bottle of water.
It seems obvious that the strict
application of the non-aggression axiom is not ethical in this situation. I could give more examples. Is it ethical to steal a car to get my dying
friend to the hospital if I have no personal means of transportation or contact
with anyone? Is it ethical to violently
punch and push my way through a crowd to reach a relative whose life is in
danger? The problem with the non-aggression principle is that sometimes you
have to harm someone in order to benefit someone else. To put it briefly: sometimes the ends justify
the means.
One might object to my examples to this
effect, however, saying that they are far-fetched, unlikely to ever occur in
practice, and thus, as hypotheticals, have no bearing upon ethical
principles. However, this objection proves
my point exactly. Of course ethical
principles are based upon hypotheticals.
To be a true axiom, a principle must be applicable in all situations, no
matter how unlikely. Universal laws of
ethics do not result from practice in various situations; rather, ethical
practice derives from ethical principles.
The ideal forms a model for the real.
This also helps to explain why,
although I deny the universality of the non-aggression principle, I can still
affirm it as a general guideline for ethical decisions in day-to-day life and
in politics. The far-fetched nature of
my examples demonstrates that situations necessitating the violation of the
non-aggression principle are rare, suggesting that although the principle is
not a universal axiom, it is a helpful rule that hold true in most cases, for
although it is a stretch to claim that aggression is always wrong, it is common
sense to say that it is usually wrong. So
the non-aggression principle, ultimately, is similar to Newton's laws of
physics. Today, we know that Newton's laws
are not universally applicable and that they cannot fully explain how the world
works. However, the world as we perceive
it operates, for the most part, according to Newton's laws. Therefore, his principles, although
insufficient as universal scientific laws, are still helpful as general rules
about how the world works most of the time.
The non-aggression principle is the same way. Although not universally applicable, and not
foundational to ethics, it applies to most ethical decisions, making it a
useful guideline.
Thus ends my general view on the
non-aggression principle. In future
posts, I will explain the ethical principles which I believe to be
foundational, and how they inform my libertarianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment