Wednesday, October 03, 2012

In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". 

"Initiate", as in "start it". That's what "aggression" is.  Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. 

Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to harm an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence / aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force from self defensive violence. That is because the authoriturds believe that only they can properly use violence- against the rest of us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their offenses. The predators among us need to be reintroduced to fear. Violence in the form of self defense must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.

(From my archives.  Originally published April 12, 2007.  Updated.)


  1. Kent,

    Good post, of course, but the font size is about half the usual. I've seen larger bacteria. :-)


  2. Try it now.

    When I was writing it, I noticed that something was odd and that it was set on "smallest" font. So, I changed it to "small"- why I didn't change it to "normal", I have no idea. But I have done so now.

  3. Good essay, Kent, as usual.

    Voting is an act of violence. I wish everyone would Abstain From Beans:

    If everyone would do that, they would go out of business and take their violence with them.

  4. A non-coercion principle would seem to apply here from Natural Law which states that freedom cannot exist where coercion exists. Swift justice to those who initiate force of any sort (including 'mind control or psychological force engaged in by business, govt and religion organizations) means we’re free to believe whatever we want without fear of reprisal. In fact I suggest in such a world, people would be genuinely disinterested in other peoples particular morality, as the net effect it has upon them would be zero.