[LPNM-forum] Annual posting, lest we forget

[Joseph Knight]

Farmington (NM) Daily Times
Thursday, December 9, 2004

-----------------------------------------------
WHAT ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT OF THE FREE?

Joseph E. Knight

OK, so just what is a "libertarian" and what do they
beleive the proper role of government should be in a
free society?
 
To answer this question, we must first understand what
is meant by "government".

Government is force [SUB-HEADING]

George Washington said "Government is not reason.
Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like
fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Government is the use of force. To govern means to
control. The use of force is implicit in the
definition of control. Otherwise, it would be
"influence" rather than control. Even the good things
that governments do involve the use of force
somewhere, somehow. Sometimes government uses force
directly to control behavior. Other times, government
uses money taken by force to fund activities which
would otherwise not involve the use of force.
 
Understanding that government is the use of force, the
question then becomes:
 
What is the proper use of force in a free society?
 
To answer this question, let's look at three types of
force:
 
1. Initial Force. In any group of people, from 2 to 20
billion, there is no use of force until someone uses
it first. Initial force is aggression or coercion.
 
2. Defensive Force. Defensive force is the use of
force to defend your safety, rights, or property. You
have the right to defend yourself, and the right to
authorize others, such as those in government, to use
defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force is
survival.
 
3. Retaliatory Force. Retaliatory force is punishment
of someone who has initiated force. If someone
assaults you, you have the right to authorize
government to punish those responsible in your behalf.
Retaliatory force is justice.
 
Some people have suggested a fourth category of
preemptive force but most examples of preemptive
force, upon analysis, can be placed in one of the
other three categories.
 
The nonaggression principle [SUB-HEADING]

Libertarians, by definition, oppose the initiation of
force. Some libertarians are also pacifists and
decline the use of any force. Some libertarians are
militants and have no qualms about defensive and/or
retaliatory force. The common factor is the opposition
to the initiation of force. 
 
Opposition to the initiation of force (the
nonaggression principle) is the essence of
libertarian philosophy. 

What is freedom? [SUB-HEADING]

Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force.
 
A robber cannot be "free" to steal your property, nor
can a bully be "free" to strike you. The robber and
bully have initiated force. The condition of freedom
doesn't exist unless there is an absence of the
initiation of force.
 
Consequently, a "right" cannot be something which must
be had at the expense of others. You have the right to
earn a living, but not to compel others to provide
your living. You have a right to free speech, but not
to compel others to provide your forum.
 
Libertarians apply the non-aggression principle to ALL
human behavior. It doesn't matter if the initiators of
force are in or out of government. Government doesn't
confer some mystical right on some to violate the
rights of others. If it is wrong for a person to
commit assault as an individual, it must be equally
wrong for a person to commit assault as an agent of
government. If somebody takes your property without
your permission, it is theft (an initiation of force).
It's theft regardless of whether the loot is used to
buy drugs or to feed the poor. It is theft regardless
of whether there is one thief or 200 million thieves.
It is theft regardless of whether the gang calls
itself "The Bloods" the "Crips" or "The Internal
Revenue Service".
 
Government's role [SUB-HEADING]

Where government exists in a free society, its role
should be limited to defending and/or retaliating
against those who initiate force. Government in a free
society should not be the initiator of force. Some
laws, such as those prohibiting murder, assault, rape,
robbery and fraud, are laws against the initiation of
force. Enforcement of such laws is the application of
defensive and/or retaliatory force, and is appropriate
for government in a free society.
 
Other laws constitute an initiation of force.
Government should not initiate force to seize the
property of individuals. Government should not
initiate force to compel service to the state.
Government should not initiate force to impose
lifestyles or moral codes.
 
Government should not initiate force - commit
aggression - even when "it's for your own good".
 
Life as a free person [SUB-HEADING]

In a free society, you have property rights. You can
use honestly acquired property in any way that does
not constitute initiation of force or fraud, trespass
on the property of others, or violate agreements you
have voluntarily entered into. You decide which
charities to support, and don't have to sacrifice your
property against your will for purposes that others
decide on rather than you.
 
In a free society, you have personal rights. You can
live however you want to, so long as you don't
initiate force or fraud against others or their
property. You decide what risks to take, what to
believe in, and how to entertain yourself.
 
Property rights and personal rights are really the
same. Personal rights are based on property rights
because you own your own life, your body, and your
mind.
 
Ownership and use of honestly acquired property is
not, in and of itself, an initiation of force and
therefore does not violate the rights of others. If
someone owns an "assault rifle" and uses it to murder
someone, it is the murder that is the initiation of
force, not the ownership of the rifle. Murder should
be prohibited and punished regardless of the weapon
used.
 
If someone owns and uses drugs, and then steals to buy
more drugs, it is the theft that is the initiation of
force. Theft should be prohibited regardless of what
the loot is spent on. The use of drugs is not the
initiation of force.
 
If you own or rent a sexually explicit video and
commit a sexual assault after viewing it, it is the
sexual assault that is the initiation of force, not
the viewing of the video. Rape should be prohibited
whether "obscenity" is involved or not. Most people
who view sexually explicit films do not commit sexual
assaults.
 
In the old days, people sometimes had to answer to the
church for their crimes. Some thought they could
lessen the gravity of their offenses by claiming
possession. "Your Holiness, the devil made me do it."
What we often hear today is "Your Honor, the drugs
made me do it" or "Your Honor, the pornography made me
do it" or "Your Honor, my unhappy childhood made me do
it."
 
With freedom comes responsibility. If you initiate
force, you should be held fully accountable. No
cop-outs, no devils, no shifting the blame to others
or to inanimate objects. If you do not initiate force
or fraud (a subtle form of force), you should be left
alone and force should not be initiated against you by
government or anybody else.
 
It's that simple. 
------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Knight of Flora Vista is a former state
chairman of the Libertarian Party of  New Mexico.






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com