Statists think it’s okay to violate the Zero Aggression Principle to achieve a good result, or prevent a bad one. But this creates a contradiction, because initiating force is itself a bad result.
[wp-svg-icons icon=”key-2″ wrap=”i”]Key Concept: Doing something negative (initiating force) takes you away from the positive. You’re in arrears the moment you attempt to use bad means to achieve good ends.
This should create a bias against initiating force, even for the best intentions. Instead of digging deep for exceptions to the Zero Aggression Principle, people should choose one of the many nonviolent options available to pursue their goals. But…
Statists love violence-based solutions, so they keep striving to find justifications. Our “Statism & Statist Myths” collection of Mental Levers rebuts many of these attempted excuses.
Perry Willis
About the Author
Jim Babka
About the Author
Show Comments 4
It takes a highly intelligent person to find non-violent solutions.
Exception: I don’t believe people have a right to purchase a ( bomb or nuclear bomb ). These are reserved for military purposes… If I purchase a bomb and a burglar breaks into my house, I not only kill him but myself and maybe my neighbors.
thanks
Nuclear weapons have very low utility except as part of a nation state’s violence based enforcement system. Their operation and maintenance costs are also substantial over time. Just look at the estimates of the NNSA budget. The net present value of buying and owning even a small one is in the billions of dollars. Given their low utility to an individual or non-violence based group, the price alone is sufficient deterrent.