The Non-Violence Principle (a justification of left-libertarianism)
Aggression is inherently illegitimate.
I would like to add a corollary that also encompasses the NAP that justifies my general position of left-libertarianism, including geolibertarianism, democratic confederalism (the term used by the great Kurdish independence leader, Abdullah Öcalan), and libertarian municipalism: the Non-Violence Principle:
Non-aggressive 'violence' (or 'quasi-violence') is as inherently illegitimate as aggressive violence.
Now, as a good ethical philosopher, I would have to define what I mean by non-aggressive violence or quasi-violence:
Non-aggressive violence or 'quasi-violence' is the removal of free choice from an actor in any given situation.
There. The debate is settled. I just put into a phrase and a definition the essence of left-libertarianism in a way worthy of a great analytic philosopher. I'm the new frickin' Wittgenstein, except of ethics, not language. (Heh. Just kidding.)
This is a basis for revolution, for basic income, for single land tax. Because the rich and/or powerful in our society dictate how one should behave, and because society in general frowns upon those who refuse to behave in this manner, they commit quasi-violence against the majority of human beings. And thus, at the very least, quasi-violence is justified against them, because they have violated the NVP.
I know this will piss everybody from the commies to the traditional libertarians to (especially) the fascists off, but pissing people off is necessary to spark change.
Next time someone tells you off about Black Lives Matter and how 'really' All Lives Matter, cite the NVP. Next time some misogynist has a shit-fit about you being a feminist, cite the NVP. Or, seriously, even if a 'misandrist' 'radical feminist' pisses you off with their bullshit, pull out the NVP.
And especially defend Bernie Sanders with it. Please. For the love of God.
Post a comment