Monday, April 21, 2014

"Name one..."

Recently I saw a person ask to be shown a society or culture anywhere in the world which has been based on Zero Aggression.

OK. Sure. No problem.

My society is grounded in Zero Aggression. I don't attack those around me, and I don't respond well to those who do. The aggressors out there are not a part of my society.

It seems the culture around me is based on Zero Aggression, too. Those who use aggression and theft are not "my society" or "my culture". They are alien to me.

I'm not sure why that's hard for anyone to understand.



  1. GREAT post, Kent. And meanwhile, those who pretend to deny it, live their own lives exactly the same way 99.999999% of the time. But somehow, it couldn't be. Talk about epistemology. Take a counterfactual imagination--inevitably built of fear--over the very evidence of your eyes and knowledge of your mind. Is it not self-evident to any person out there, at least any non-whackos, that they don't wish to be a thug?

    But no..."Everybody else is, so I guess I oughta too."

    Damn, I hope you get a big run on those flags.

    1. Yep. People who do create their own "society of aggression" don't usually fare too well if they act that way all the time to everyone.

      I've been out of flags for a long time- and can't afford to get more made.

    2. "People who do create their own 'society of aggression' don't usually fare too well if they act that way all the time to everyone."

      Helluva point; it also explains why we get overrun with Govco thugs. They do fare well nearly every time. Sorta like Mendelian Genetics, but in the volitional realm.

      Sorry about the flags; glad I didn't start pushing them. There was a time when that problem would be fixed tomorrow, but this ain't that time.

    3. Even Govthugs don't act like that outside their "official" capacity, in most cases. If they did they'd get kicked out of the grocery store and never be invited to visit anyone. It's only their "job" that gives them the cover they need to get away with being aggressive- and that only works "on the clock".

  2. When I asked you about such a society, I meant large scale, like a kingdom, village, or even a small tribe. I'm sure your immediate society is successful because of your advocacy of the principal. I'm not sure whether you define that your nuclear family household or your neighborhood. But when I asked you about it in a prior thread, I was talking about something beyond that, something that would be in recorded history somewhere so that I could learn how they succeeded in it.

    1. It wasn't actually you I was responding to- I had seen that question a couple of days before it was brought up in the comments here, so that's when I wrote this post (I pre-schedule a lot of stuff). But, I've seen the same question so many times over the years, so it needs to be addressed.

      "I'm sure your immediate society is successful because of your advocacy of the principal"
      I have nothing to do with it. If people don't act that way- with non-aggression- they can't function in society. Do you think you'll get far if you go to Walmart and start shoving people and just taking what you want, and refusing to stand in line? What if you are just walking down the street and shove everyone aside- or into the street, regardless of whether a car is coming? What if you punch every person who offends you in some way during the day? If you don't do this you are living by Zero Aggression. But why excuse those who don't live this way because of their "job"? What makes them so "special"?

      There are people in my family whose very "jobs" violate the ZAP, but even they act as though they follow it when they aren't "on the job". If they didn't, I would never associate with them because I would always be in danger of being attacked. There are also some in my immediate circle who are in opposition to everything I stand for- and yet, they also generally behave non-aggressively- just because it is in their best interest to do so.

      I used to sing karaoke with a cop. When he wasn't on the job he didn't aggress against anyone (that I knew of- although there were rumors). Yet, he was very aggressive in doing his "job"- a real thug. Now, I never let myself forget what his "job" was- I knew where to draw the trust line. But, the only violence I ever saw him use when he wasn't working was to break up a fight or two- and that, by definition, is not "aggression".

      So, other than "their government", every society, kingdom, village, and tribe has lived by non-aggression. They would never survive a week if they didn't. Why do some people place "government" outside the rules? Only through "government" and "state" can aggressors appear to prosper. And that is only because some people- not me- see their being above the Law as the way it should be. It's not. It's sick and perverted.

    2. You want to know how they succeeded in it, in order that you may succeed in it. That's right, isn't it? That's what Kent has been saying over and over---you can anyway, no matter what they did.

      If how you live depends on how others live, then you've got a long wait, like never. Yes, you have to defend yourself against those who would bring you harm. Most people are saying that they're not willing to do that themselves, but it doesn't matter. Your life is yours, whether you accept it or not.

    3. But, the only violence I ever saw him use when he wasn't working was to break up a fight or two- and that, by definition, is not "aggression".

      Do you mean he was stopping an assault in progress?

      Otherwise I would like to hear the justification for violently interjecting himself into a fight between consenting adults. Looks like one or the other could have easily resolved the fight themselves by walking away if they wished without interference by the cop friend.

    4. Even if the fight had truly been mutual, between consenting "adults", the owners of the bar had made an arrangement with him to keep fights quelled if they broke out. Your right to fight doesn't include the right to fight on someone else's property. In that case he was protecting property rights he had been asked to protect by the owners.

      Plus, I don't think I ever saw a bar fight that was a mutual affair- it was always one person jumping on someone else (which is the meaning of "initiated force"). After that happened, of course the attacked person fought back. And then he did pull them apart.

      The person who throws the first punch is the one who initiates force- even if the other person said "words".

    5. Interesting. From the Libertarian view I would think bar fights would be an assumed risk for the owner and the patrons. Proceed at your own risk so to speak. If the property owner doesn't like fights, then is it not his ultimate responsibility to not let people on his property in the first place?

      Sorta like letting kids on your property to shoot fireworks, then getting upset when they burn your house down.

    6. "From the Libertarian view..."
      I can really only speak for myself, although I would hope most libertarians agree with me (otherwise, one of us would be wrong).

      "...I would think bar fights would be an assumed risk..."
      And, perhaps they could be, in some cases, in a free society. But this isn't that society, is it?

      I could imagine some bar owners in a free society saying "Hey, you wanna fight? Go ahead. You break any of my stuff, you'll pay for it." Or just about any arrangement he might want and his customers were willing to agree to. I think most would probably reserve the right to forbid fights on their property due to liability concerns (which don't go away just because there is no coercive State enforcing things) and the cost of damaged property. But some bar owners might encourage fights as a sort of "dangerous entertainment". It takes all kinds, you know. And, as long as it is consensual...

  3. Kent, you've succinctly outlined what I mean when I declare, "I am a sovereign state".

    I'm not responsible for the behavior of others -- except perhaps that of minor children in my care (I'm a grandpa of 25, great grandpa of 5). I wish you wouldn't participate in bread-and-circus events called "elections" -- by which you simply show that one more individual supports the violence that is "the-state" (thanks, Mark). But I'll not attempt to stop you. I wish you wouldn't continue to be a government ("public" ha ha) "servant". But if you happen to be a policeman or city clerk or county truck driver you've probably got one of the highest paying jobs in town, and you would have to be a genuine martyr to simply quit and take a lower paying occupation out here in the marketplace. And, fact is, your job would likely be filled by a greater tyrant than you.

    Free societies are everywhere if you just look around (pdf). It's when individuals collectively try to "form" or "create" societies that the trouble starts. Sam

  4. "Otherwise I would like to hear the justification for violently interjecting himself into a fight between consenting adults."

    Because any person may associate or not associate with whomever he chooses, including for that most important of functions, self-defense. Now if both parties want him to stay the hell out of it, then it's not a consensual interaction any longer, with regard to him. Then and only then would he be a force initiator.