The Non-Aggression Principle or NAP is the general notion that it is wrong to aggress—or to threaten aggression—on a person or their property unless done so in a manner which fits into a—more often than not—strict and immediate sense of self-defence. As a tool for teaching children and the uninitiated how to think in an ethical sense it is reliable and robust only when left unchallenged. Therein lies the problem; not only does it begin to seem idealistic in the abstract where issues of “who aggressed first?” or “what constitutes aggression?” arise, it becomes all the more laughable when considered as a ground rule one must accept to be a libertarian —or even a politically active one at that.
Libertarianism, in the majority of its forms, stands out as an ideology which goes to great lengths to delegitimise the use of force in all aspects bar self-defence; but this makes it, in a very important sense, an incomplete ideology. It can make great theoretical refutations of state actors and their violent actions, yet offers little in the way of how to rid society of these actors, especially in a practical sense, other than telling you to wait until the first shot has whizzed past your head. It can explain the world around us but only offers pacifism as a method of change. This may be recognisable to some as a hallmark of libertarianism’s liberal roots, it speaks to an indifference that one would have to violence, that any aggression outside of the realm of direct self-defence is anti-liberal and therefore tyrannical in its nature.
Marxism, conservatism, neo-liberalism to name just a few have no problems in identifying an enemy to which the use of force can be justified, they do this as they exist within an explicitly political world. Whether consciously or not they have taken on board an important lesson that has been evident since at least the French revolution; that the political unity and singularity of the state as a final decider in any and all cases was still true, but the faction that could declare itself as the supreme by whatever means was able to take the reigns of state. No longer was the state as such a neutral and far away body, it was a means for antagonising domestic conflict amongst groups, classes, races, religions etc.
“Any religious, moral, economic, ethnic, or other antagonism will turn into a political antagonism if it is strong enough to effectively group people by friend and enemy.”
-Carl Schmitt
In short, political actors were now part of a Machiavellian operation to seek dominance for their tribe as part of the never ending struggle of politics. This conflict—and ultimately dominance—demanded that some portion of society be segmented from the rest, a distinction must be made as to who should rule and who should not, who should be able to subject their fellow man to ill treatment and who should be treated with such enmity. This is why Schmitt goes on to say that:
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be traced is the distinction between friend and enemy.”
Libertarianism sees itself as existing outside this struggle, it suggests that to dominate at all is somehow wrong and that it is inherently illegitimate no matter the justification. Now while I still see value in a system of ethics existing outside of the concept of both the state and politics, it would be insane to suggest that such a system could somehow solve the state and political conflicts—ever intensifying conflicts at that and doubly so when it cannot manifest a motivating friend/enemy distinction.
During the Bolshevik revolution the intensity of the political conflict was reaching new highs, institutions such as Cheka were set up to act as secret police to carry out politically motivated attacks, this is known now as the red terror. A period from late august 1918 to 1922 within which Lenin as the de-facto leader of the Bolshevik forces declared the kulaks as their enemy, and demanded they be dealt with in a way that only a true and absolute enemy deserves. Lenin had in a sense manipulated his faction and the Russian state into a situation whereby war was the only viable option for any of his opponents, he forced his enemies to come out of hiding so as to “continue politics by other means.” This allowed Lenin to unleash absolute enmity, as “The war of absolute enmity knows no containment.” This can be obviously seen in his letter circa August 1918, he not only asks for the direct use of violence against his enemies but demands a display of it so as to ward off any would be opponents.
Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity ... You must make examples of these people.
(1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers.
(2) Publish their names.
(3) Seize all their grain.
(4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram.
Do all this so that for miles around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so ...
Yours, Lenin.
P.S. Find tougher people.
The response to this was the unification of many Russian forces under the title of the White Army, so too did the leader of the White Army declare himself as the supreme leader of Russia and its armies. This was a losing battle but it is interesting to note that the “enemy” faction saw it’s most important moves as one; unifying as an attempt to be a larger political force than Lenin’s Bolsheviks and two, declaring a member of said faction as the supreme, as the one sole figure that gets to dictate who is the enemy and what should be done unto them. If only they had told Lenin that his actions were against the NAP and that he was going to be a tyrant if he continued, I'm sure the Bolshevik forces would have downed arms and joined their fellow countrymen in singing kumbaya hand in hand.
In an age far past the Russian civil war and beyond the student activist chants of “the personal is the political,” politics is no less decisive or violent. Clever strategists and NGO organisers have made use of violent groups such as BLM, Extinction Rebellion, Antifa, etc to dissuade the construction of a meaningful anti-state friend/enemy distinction. In a society where anything and everything is ever more politicised and “struggled” for, right wingers are tricked into fighting made up factions that can be replaced moment to moment and are merely just the shadow puppets of those truly holding power. One must understand how not only through the aforementioned groups but through publicly provided services, democracy, corporate socialism and the welfare state, the ability of any individual or group of individuals to live ethically outside the system has become impossible. Libertarian thought cannot deal with this paradigm, not if it must abide by the NAP.
This phenomenon of totalising political mentalities has only ever become more normalised as “liberal democracy” enshrines itself as the status quo, an implicit assertion that by no other process could we organise society. This mindset is the reason why anyone who suggests otherwise in a distinctly anti-progressive, secessionist, anti-democratic or anti-pluralist tone is dealt with by the utmost derision. Not only are you a racist neo-Nazi who hates gays, you clearly also want to drag every man, woman and child along with you into the dark ages —so in turn you are no longer granted the privilege of civility. We should heed the words of Hillary Clinton in 2018, when she quite plainly— and masterfully—stated on international news that the GOP, Trump supporters and any identifiable “deplorables” should not be allowed to carry on their lives in peace and that they should be publicly harassed so that others should know.
Lenin would be salivating at the thought; not only has she de-facto declared herself as the leader of the anti-right faction, she has designated the enemy and what should be done unto them. Clinton even picked up on the idea that the most effective political harassment should be done for all to see, and that this order wasn’t just given to troops of a specific organisation, it was stated in the press for all eyes. She played an important role in helping to solidify the political antagonism amongst her in-group and its followers, not only targeting their enemies but leaving a direct threat in the air to those who may consider stepping out of line. The “basket of deplorables” was seen as a political misstep within the moment, but fed into a grander narrative of Trump supporters et al. as the violent “other,” helping underpin the perception of the January sixth “insurrection.”
Moments like these become bookmarks in the progressive struggle for peace across the one world that they so desire; not only are progressives conflictual but expansionist, the implicit threats against those who have not yet stepped out are threats to both sides. Not only can you no longer just not be with the enemy, you must be with us and you must remain with us, or else. In doing so progressives clear the political sphere of neutrality, in an effort to unify the political structure toward greater conflicts.
The only attempt I have come across which reflects a conscious understanding of how the state apparatus and its permeation into a politicised public can be dealt with is a footnote within Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty.'' Amongst the chapter on self-defence Rothbard describes what he calls the maximalist view of self-defence that still fits within the NAP, he describes a situation within which a storekeeper is dealing with an urchin who has stolen one of his products. Rothbard asks the question of whether or not under pure libertarian law is it acceptable to kill the urchin, as the urchin has chosen not to uphold libertarian law the shopkeeper is well within his rights to retaliate and in theory yes, he can kill the urchin. At which point a footnote is mentioned “On the maximalist view, furthermore, socialists, interventionists and utilitarians would, by virtue of their views, be liable to execution.” He goes on to dissuade us of this view as it “suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion.” Now while this may be true in the case of a urchin stealing a candy bar, and that Rothbard’s suggestion that in this case the urchin too has rights may be worth listening to, when the footnote is taken into account as a political statement, Rothbard’s focus on equal treatment becomes his downfall.
There is no long term advantage to being “the fairer side” when your enemy stands against your own autonomy and dignity. As that’s what enemies are for;
“The political enemy need not be morally evil; he need not be aesthetically ugly; he need not be an economic competitor… He is just the other, the stranger, and it is sufficient to his nature that he is existentially different and foreign in a particularly intense way.”
Schmitt—without knowing it—has conversely identified the issue that Rothbard has fallen for; if you cannot “mistreat” anyone under the standard of proportionality, then how could you ever have an enemy? When property and libertarian law are the highest values—and evidently cornerstones of civilisation—are not only questioned but attacked both by individuals and the state, that makes the attackers “existentially different.” It could even be argued that it is directly against human nature to act in such a manner, then why shouldn't we treat our opponents as animals?
“A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labour performed under a division of labour based on private property is not properly speaking a person, but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal”
-Hans Herman Hoppe
The irony should not be lost on us then that leftists are generally herded like cattle from one progressive project to the next, from one battle to another. The case of weak morals and non-existent scruples can be clearly shown through an understanding of libertarian theory; whilst Hoppe’s formulation of covenant communities which allows for physical removal is handy, it is still limited by its ethical considerations. If leftist actors operating at a state level or not can continue to attack property rights they are our enemy and must be treated as such. We must separate ourselves from the shackles of pure ethics and strike back, for it is the moral thing to do. This can only be done through the hi-jacking of local government, whilst democracy and the welfare state remain national norms, it is vital that you make life insufferable for its proponents in your local area by any means necessary. A locality, never mind society, that still propagates these ideas can never come under the rule of Libertarian law. Zero tolerance must be the way forward and it can be done, a zealotry of the highest order justified by natural law would appeal directly to man’s soul and dignity in a way that would have modernists quaking in their boots. Politics has no second prizes, no honour awards and no rules of engagement, our enemies are always conscious of this. The more important question is, are you?
While LOLbertarians try and extrapolate the NAP into comprehensive moral and political code (which it obviously is not), this is a frankly retarded take on it. Once someone aggresses against you, it's perfectly acceptable to take whatever is necessary and proper to defend your person & property, up to and including utterly destroying them and taking all their shit in compensation (naturally, you have to keep to community standards, it's normally not acceptable to say, kill a kid because he hit a ball onto your lawn).
Clearly, you can do better than this if your intent is to discredit pacifism and restore some sanity to libertarians regarding the use of force.