No one, except for a few sociopaths, uses aggression to impose their personal preferences on others. Most people obey the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) in their personal life. But in the political realm, many of these same, good people become statists. When it comes to “governance,” they embrace a…
Pro-Aggression Principle (PAP): The problems I care about are so important that my solutions justify using threats, backed by violence, to impose them on others.
Let’s be clear: One can fix a social problem using persuasion and voluntary cooperation. No aggression is required.
But the statist declares, “There ought to be a law.” Laws require penalties — all must obey or suffer arrest and punishment. The statist even thinks death is warranted in even the most passive cases of resisting arrest. Therefore…
Every person who embraces State aggression has made a choice. They are implicitly rejecting peaceful persuasion and voluntary cooperation as tools for solving social problems. They have chosen the pro-aggression path.
But is it just or accurate to call pro-aggression their “principle?” That is, do they really intend to be violent? Perhaps they were so focused on the problem that they never gave much thought to the violence. Nevertheless…
It is more than fair to say aggression is their principle. Their plans require the power to punish instead of persuade. They could’ve tried to win others to their solution using…
- scientific arguments
- fair application
- neighborly compassion
- customer service
- great wisdom
After all, leaders in technological, business, and charitable solutions use those persuasive approaches all the time. But the statist believes their issue is special. Aggression is necessary because not enough people will share their level of concern.
Now that I know what the central principle of politics is, I can rest easy in my beliefs that the government is out to enslave or destroy all of us by any means, including civil war (which is a racket just like war itself).
And I know that that isn’t being paranoid! Thanks to you all at ZAP, and keep up the great work!
The whole problem of the punishing ‘long arm’ of the state is that it isn’t even the ‘long arm of the (bad) law’ anymore. There is both the problem of enforcing bad law (and I would argue that some of the laws are downright evil) and not seeking justice for victims of it. One of the few sites that will cover statist murder (not involving race) stories is World Net Daily. (But then, they are known for independence in journalism. In this particular case, the cops essentially ‘knocked and shot’ -(http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/cops-knock-and-shoot-leaves-innocent-man-dead/ Other cases may not be so clear-cut , but still could be questioned as over use of force: http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/cop-slams-girl-face-first-into-ground-in-standard-arrest-technique/) Neither side of the aisle wants to touch this with a 100 meter pole, except for Rand Paul, who has requested that the police not be militarized, has a Senate bill to that effect, and has been interviewed by Time concerning the issue: http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/: .
Some officers are even attempting to force nurses to violate an unconscious patient’s rights, in spite of state laws protecting both the nurse’s and patient’s rights: http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/utah-hospital-orders-cops-to-leave-nurses-alone/. This is a full blown epidemic, and the only apparent cure is the end of the disease of statism.
There is one that combines several – Setting a good example!
Thank you for helping us see how things work, and for teaching us workable alternatives to share with officials who rely on mindless aggression.