The below first appeared in my eletter. Subscribe here penjams.com/subscribe.
There are Rothbardian libertarians advocating aggression. Now it comes with a caveat, like “under current circumstances, I [support aggression],” but still. How crazy is that? It’s extra sad because the impulse (to be marketable or to honor common sense) is good and understandable. But misguided, it's getting many to undermine the liberty movement. Or… change my mind. 🙂
What do I mean? Say libertarian border cowboy Ron Sonswan doesn’t like federal involvement in border control. He objects on grounds of aggression. He says, “They’re interfering in the local government’s work in such a way that it supports the on-going trespass [aggression] of potentially dangerous people onto the property of the good people of this town. Meanwhile, they also impede our ability to protect our own lands with violations of our rights to bear arms [aggression].”
Ron might also object to the local government’s involvement for the same reason. “Sure. Our local guys also violate our rights to arms and such [aggression] but not mine, and not as much. I don’t like that either, but it’s better than them Washington Democrats sacrificing us to their political agenda. At least the local guys don’t make things worse and expose us to other dangers in the process. They have to live here too.”
He prefers the localized efforts to that of an army under a president that makes things worse. That doesn't mean he likes it. One can prefer the lesser evil without promoting it. It seems like libertarians are forgetting that. It's special-pleading to object to some laws with a principled stance against aggression, only to advocate aggression in more extreme cases. If the principle doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of hard cases, then it's refuted and no good for the easy cases either.
“Ideally, we’d have a sizable, competent, and insured organization owned and ran by all the land owners, subject to reputable judges, whereby we took care of business ourselves. I could get behind that, but that's just not an option yet.”
Ron admits the common sense of what his live options are in merely preferring the lesser evil. He doesn’t have to promote it, to be pro-aggression (under certain circumstances), to be temporarily of conflicting principles. Still, when fit hits the shan, most anarchists sound like minarchists, and minarchists approach neocon.
. . .
And there was more, but I'll leave that for the good people on my email list. Don't forget to subscribe, and have yourself a Happy Easter weekend!
Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… (see “About”). Get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.