The core principle of the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the non-aggression principle. It holds that it is morally wrong for one person to initiate force against another person, either directly or indirectly through the use of government. Libertarians understand the critical importance of the non-aggression principle and subscribe to it … mostly.
Let’s assume that I rob you of $10,000. I take the money and give it to the poor, needy, and disadvantaged. I don’t keep any of the money for myself. By robbing you of your money, I have initiated force against you. Under the libertarian non-aggression principle, my action is considered immoral even though I have selflessly given the money to others who need it.
The same principle applies to the government. If the government taxes you $10,000 and gives it to the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, the government has engaged in an immoral action. That’s because taxation is based on force. The government forces you to pay taxes. If you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will initiate force against you in the form of arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, fines, liens, attachments, and garnishments. There is nothing voluntary about the government’s requirement to pay taxes. The fact that the government has given the money to others who need it does not change the wrongfulness of what the government has done.
Libertarians apply the non-aggression principle not only to the private robber but also to the government. Just as it is morally wrong for a private robber to take a person’s money and give it to others, it us just as morally wrong for the government to do it.
Non-libertarians can understand the immorality and wrongfulness of private robbers forcibly taking people’s money and giving it to others. Unfortunately, however, many of them are unable to see that the same principle applies to the government.
Unfortunately, however, some libertarians have carved out an exception to the non-aggression principle. They hold that it is okay to violate the libertarian non-aggression principle if one is gradually reducing a welfare-state program.
For example, consider Social Security, which is the crown jewel of America’s welfare state. It is based on the initiation of force because it relies on the IRS to forcibly seize through taxation the income of younger people in order to give the money to older people.
Therefore, to fulfill the non-aggression principle, the only correct position that a libertarian can take is to advocate the immediate repeal of this socialist program. Immediate repeal would necessarily entail an immediate end to the initiation of force on which Social Security is based.
However, some libertarians say that to immediately repeal Social Security would be cruel and heartless and, furthermore, that it would mean people dying in the streets.
But how can care and compassion come with a system that is based on the initiation of force? Don’t care and compassion come from the voluntary hearts of individuals? Moreover, Americans lived without Social Security and other socialist programs for more than 125 years. Yet, nobody was dying in the streets. On the contrary, when Americans were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth (i.e., no income tax or IRS), there was not only the greatest outburst of economic prosperity that the world had ever seen, there was also the greatest outburst of voluntary charity that mankind had ever seen.
Obviously, the “gradual” reduction of Social Security and other socialist programs involves the continued initiation of force during the period of time of the gradualism. But can the initiation of force ever be justified under the libertarian philosophy, even if the force is being initiated for a limited period of time? What good is the non-aggression principle if there is an exception to it that vitiates the principle itself? Moreover, if it’s okay to violate the non-aggression principle in one instance, why not in more instances?
God has created a consistent universe. People do not need to fear freedom, which necessarily entails the immediate termination of infringements on freedom. And libertarians do not need to fear the consistent application of the core principle of our philosophy — the non-aggression principle.
The post Gradualism and the Non-Aggression Principle appeared first on LewRockwell.
The post <a href=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/06/jacob-hornberger/gradualism-and-the-non-aggression-principle/ target=_blank >Gradualism and the Non-Aggression Principle</a> appeared first on Conservative Angle | Conservative Angle - Conservative News Clearing House
Continue reading...
Let’s assume that I rob you of $10,000. I take the money and give it to the poor, needy, and disadvantaged. I don’t keep any of the money for myself. By robbing you of your money, I have initiated force against you. Under the libertarian non-aggression principle, my action is considered immoral even though I have selflessly given the money to others who need it.
The same principle applies to the government. If the government taxes you $10,000 and gives it to the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, the government has engaged in an immoral action. That’s because taxation is based on force. The government forces you to pay taxes. If you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will initiate force against you in the form of arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, fines, liens, attachments, and garnishments. There is nothing voluntary about the government’s requirement to pay taxes. The fact that the government has given the money to others who need it does not change the wrongfulness of what the government has done.
Libertarians apply the non-aggression principle not only to the private robber but also to the government. Just as it is morally wrong for a private robber to take a person’s money and give it to others, it us just as morally wrong for the government to do it.
Non-libertarians can understand the immorality and wrongfulness of private robbers forcibly taking people’s money and giving it to others. Unfortunately, however, many of them are unable to see that the same principle applies to the government.
Unfortunately, however, some libertarians have carved out an exception to the non-aggression principle. They hold that it is okay to violate the libertarian non-aggression principle if one is gradually reducing a welfare-state program.
For example, consider Social Security, which is the crown jewel of America’s welfare state. It is based on the initiation of force because it relies on the IRS to forcibly seize through taxation the income of younger people in order to give the money to older people.
Therefore, to fulfill the non-aggression principle, the only correct position that a libertarian can take is to advocate the immediate repeal of this socialist program. Immediate repeal would necessarily entail an immediate end to the initiation of force on which Social Security is based.
However, some libertarians say that to immediately repeal Social Security would be cruel and heartless and, furthermore, that it would mean people dying in the streets.
But how can care and compassion come with a system that is based on the initiation of force? Don’t care and compassion come from the voluntary hearts of individuals? Moreover, Americans lived without Social Security and other socialist programs for more than 125 years. Yet, nobody was dying in the streets. On the contrary, when Americans were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth (i.e., no income tax or IRS), there was not only the greatest outburst of economic prosperity that the world had ever seen, there was also the greatest outburst of voluntary charity that mankind had ever seen.
Obviously, the “gradual” reduction of Social Security and other socialist programs involves the continued initiation of force during the period of time of the gradualism. But can the initiation of force ever be justified under the libertarian philosophy, even if the force is being initiated for a limited period of time? What good is the non-aggression principle if there is an exception to it that vitiates the principle itself? Moreover, if it’s okay to violate the non-aggression principle in one instance, why not in more instances?
God has created a consistent universe. People do not need to fear freedom, which necessarily entails the immediate termination of infringements on freedom. And libertarians do not need to fear the consistent application of the core principle of our philosophy — the non-aggression principle.
The post Gradualism and the Non-Aggression Principle appeared first on LewRockwell.
The post <a href=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/06/jacob-hornberger/gradualism-and-the-non-aggression-principle/ target=_blank >Gradualism and the Non-Aggression Principle</a> appeared first on Conservative Angle | Conservative Angle - Conservative News Clearing House
Continue reading...