Porcupine Non Grata


Hugh Akston's picture

The NAP is a principle derived from the right to life. The very reason why it is an extremely bad idea to advocate violence even in "self defence" is that you risk violating someones right to life. People do not forgo their right to life if they infringe on your right to life or the autonomy of action implied by that right. There are many non-violent means of defense and obtaining redress that can be employed in a peaceful society. An anarchic/libertarian society will only work if there will be broad support for a secular objective morality based on this principle with the resort to violence truly being used when other options are exhausted or truly unavoidable (with no far fetched rationalizations to justify it). It is pretty logical that by advocating violence when you have not exhausted peaceful options to resistance, you are risking the perceptions of what the idea of liberty is about and will destroy any chance of a large section of society gaining an understanding of what objective morality is all about. So in conclusion, a libertarian advocating violence is a greater enemy to liberty than a deluded statist.

Jim Davies's picture

Hugh, I think you nailed it with "There are many non-violent means of defense and obtaining redress" and I'd expand that by saying that there is at least one way to obtain a free society without violence. Perhaps the FSP method isn't one such, but killing government agents isn't one either.
Killing is morally justified when there is a credible, imminent threat to life - one's own, or that of someone else one may have the chance to save. Anything more is literally overkill. That's our moral dilemma.
Chris, who was ejected from FSP, seems not to appreciate that moral dilemma and seems unaware of the available peaceful way to eliminate government from society. Should he read this, he can find it here.

Samarami's picture

The article refers to a group of individuals packed together into a "free state project" (a total contradiction in words), the thinking being if everybody is "libertarian" (should be with a capital "L"), and all move to one specific location (New Hampshire?) and infiltrate that group of psychopaths grouped into what is called "government" -- well, then "the state" will not be such a nefarious entity after all.

From such mentality I should feel honored to be expelled.

I am a sovereign state. I guess you could call me "...an anarchic/libertarian society..." And I work (and do pretty well at refraining from "advocating" violence).

I do advocate that you abstain from beans. Does that count?