ZAP 2.0
ZAP 1.0: Do not initiate aggression.
ZAP 2.0: Do not initiate, or accept, aggression.
The ZAP (Zero-Aggression Principle, also known as “NAP” or “Non-Aggression Principle”) is a concept embraced by many libertarians. It basically boils down to “Do not initiate aggression.” (It is sometimes also stated as “Do not initiate force” or “No initiations of force!”)
I propose a small amendment to the wording of the ZAP, adding the phrase “or accept”, which would make it read: Do not initiate, or accept, aggression.
Because another tenet of libertarianism is that the right to self-defense is innate. This is one reason that libertarians are usually pro-gun, and hate the mewling-yet-aggressive demands of gun-grabboid leftists who think we should be de-clawed. This demand for the right of self-defense is embraced by both small-l libertarians and by The Libertarian Party.
Libertarians love to argue discuss things. This is natural. We don’t automatically accept things as they are, often think “I could do better” and don’t like being told how to view the world. That’s because we are libertarians.
“HERDING CATS”
Boston T. Party pointed out that:
“…Our lack of pack animal instincts has also had a part in keeping, ironically, the Freedom Movement from growing.”
I agree with Boston on this.
And a decent-sized part of all arguments discussions between libertarians, online or in person, is discussing the minutia of the ZAP. And it often comes down to some libertarians feeling like “the ZAP isn’t for me, because it sounds pacifist.”
I think the addition of “…or accept…” into the wording of the ZAP makes it work. And it’s pretty much been there all along, just not in the wording. It needed a tiny tweak to become:
ZAP 2.0: Do not initiate, or accept, aggression.
See? Problem solved. Pass it on. Tell two friends.
“FORCE” OR “AGGRESSION”?
In my book A User’s Manual for the Human Experience, I put forth “The Only Two Rules in Life”, which are the classic natural laws (with influence of the Richard Maybury wording), but with the addition of “or accept” in the first law. Thus, The Only Two Rules in Life are:
1. Do not initiate, or accept, force.
2. Keep your word.
I ran this addition by a few prominent libertarians. Jason Sorens liked it. Boston T. Party and MamaLiberty liked it, but suggested changing the word “force” to “aggression.”
I didn’t change the word “force” to “aggression” in the book, for two reasons. First, the book is largely about emotional self-defense, which is not always defense against aggression, but is usually defense against force.
Second, I think force and aggression are rather interchangeable in this context. Maybe “aggression” is more intense force, or “meaner” force, but I think all aggression is force (even dropping an A-Bomb is force, as well as being aggression). But maybe not all force is aggression (making a passive-aggressive remark about someone probably is force but is not always aggression. And learning to deal effectively with passive-aggressive serenity vampires, time wasters and people pleasers is what my new book is largely about).
Regardless, I think the aggression/force debate is semantics about minutia. But I (and others) do like the addition of “or accept” into the ZAP. It’s not minutia, it’s about the overall macro principle of a major tenet of libertarianism.
Use the wording with “aggression”, rather than “force”, if that seems to work better. It works, and I think it will unite libertarians more by getting rid of one of the main (and most silly) arguments that we see over and over and over. And over. And over….
(Comment on this page here.)
(See also, post about Rick Maybury’s two rules.)
Thank you,
Michael W. Dean
Love it. I carry a gun and hate how hippie a lot of libertaians sound. I’d have more respect for them if more talked like this.
Love the new blog! keep it up.
MWD
I was raised to not mess with someone, but the fury of hell should be unleashed in regards to self defense. I won’t cross your line, but if your cross mine i’m going to use as much force as necessary to move you back across my line in the dirt, and make it so you don’t want to come back ever again.
This has become my personal philosophy.
Good article and great work on the blog, Michael.
You are a machine!
Perhaps it’s fitting that my first post of any kind here will be a comment to respectfully disagree with you, Michael!
I believe that in one way—which is the way that I would be lead to agree with you when first contemplating this—it is a redundancy, and in another way, it is altogether unfitting for what should properly be called libertarianism. I’ll explain.
At first glance, this to be simply affirming a position that libertarian theorists of the past and myself hold, which is that to truly value individual rights as a principle, you must at all times prefer non-aggression to aggression. The example given by Rothbard (as he obviously believed the State to be inherently coercive), is that of a lever. For the sake of this argument, we can imagine the hypothetical lever to have some magical quality that leads us to believe that by pulling it, you will effectively abolish the State and all governmentlike coercive entities (gangs, for example.) If you believe that it is better to pull the lever than to not pull the lever, then you truly uphold the non-aggression principle. If you believe that it is better to NOT pull the lever, whether the reason be the disappearance of government-funded healthcare, education, or “charity” programs, then you do not uphold the non-aggression principle, and you can not be accurately referred to as a libertarian on moral grounds. For if you believe that not pulling the lever is a better scenario, you obviously value societal welfare above individual liberty, and do not uphold the non-aggression principle as a moral principle or a guiding force for human action. In this way, of course your “Zero Aggression Principle 2.0″ is correct, we morally ought not accept aggression at any time. However, as the lever example shows, non-acceptance (in this way) is directly implied by holding non-aggression as a moral principle.
In another way, however, the wording of this as a principle is in-and-of-itself limiting towards human liberty. The Non-Aggression Principle is essentially a thou shalt not, and a moral principle that is necessitated for human beings to interact rationally. It is a statement that affirms negative obligations/rights (that which others cannot do to you.) It does not imply positive obligations/rights (that which others must do for you.) However, your Zero-Aggression Principle 2.0 DOES imply positive obligations, and furthermore does not provide a clear-cut decisive guide for rational human action. Let’s assume for a second that you are not carrying a firearm (for example, let’s say you’re in an area that does not allow concealed carry.) You are not physically fit. You are alone. Across the street, you see a man being mugged by five well-armed gang members.
Do you
a) run over to the gangmembers, and personally begin to fight them with your bare hands, likely doing absolutely nothing to actually aid the victim, and perhaps getting yourself killed in the process.
OR
b) call the police (for the sake of this argument, let’s ignore their less-than-perfect response time.)
OR
c) ignore the incident.
If you chose A, you will have affirmed this “ZAP 2.0″ in full. You will have affirmed that as a moral principle, one ought not accept aggression. However, no moral purpose, be it your own self-interest, the interest of the victim, or even due justice delivered to the thugs, will have been served. In fact, the irrationality of the action would prove it to be immoral. So, the most clearly endorsed course of action if one is to uphold the ZAP2.0 is NOT one that is morally advisable.
If you chose B, one may say that you have affirmed the ZAP2.0 in the sense that you have refused acceptance of the assailants’ aggression. Furthermore, I believe that it would be a highly moral action: the interests of the innocent would be served (if the police reach the scene of the crime in time), due justice would be delivered to the aggressors, and you yourself would be serving your own enlightened self-interest by eliminating a threat to the safety of your community. However, the ZAP2.0 would not be upheld and full, and thus not upheld as a moral principle. This is because you will have used a means that accepts the means of coercive taxation. By utilizing a service that has received its funds coercively, you are accepting the State’s coercion. However, don’t you think that it’s necessary in this scenario to accept that despite the fact you are ultimately accepting an instance of coercion, it is the most advisable of all options literally possible, and thus the best solution for a morality-driven libertarian who truly believes in the non-aggression principle? And given that you are only calling the cops, and not personally twisting arms to collect the taxes that funded them, aren’t you fulfilling your moral obligation under the non-aggression principle? This particular counter-example also highlights why the argument of “HAY IF U GUYZ DONT BELEVE N TAXS MAYB ILL LISTN 2 U ONC U STOP DRIVIN ON PUBLIK RODZ LOL HIGHFIVE!” is foolish. You didn’t twist the arms to get the funds, you’re just using the end product. Obviously, if your actions could decide whether or not the taxation occurred, you’d choose the one that prevented the aggressive taxation from occurring in the first place, but given that that really isn’t up to you, you must take the most rational choice that is actually available to you. Thus, you can send your kids to public schools if you so choose, because you didn’t take the funds, you can use the post office if you so choose, because you didn’t take the funds, and you can call the cops—because you didn’t take the funds.
If you chose option C, you will have rejected the State’s coercion, as well as avoided the immoral action of being a dumbass faux toughguy. However, you will have accepted the coercion of the gangmembers, and furthermore, been simultaneously a coward and a douchebag. I will assume that you agree with me as to the reasons why this course of action would be immoral, so I will not waste time elaborating on them. But, this option also raises another point: shouldn’t someone be allowed to be this shriveling, impotent little shit, despite how despicable it is? If we were to follow the double-bind of the ZAP2.0, one may begin to believe that a personal decision towards cowardice ought be illegal due to making acceptance of coercion morally equivalent to its initiation. However, punishing the pitiful piss would also break the ZAP2.0 (as well as the Non-Aggression Principle), given that you’d necessarily be initiating aggression upon this bystander. Not only is there no clear course of action in regards with how to deal with those who choose option C if one is to uphold the ZAP2.0, dealing with option C proves as an example of how the concept of ZAP2.0 can become self-contradictory.
All of this, of course, meant as polite disagreement. I look forward to a reply to this comment that will continue as a friendly discussion.
That’s a long-ass comment, Jason.
lol….
MWD
Jason, I pretty much have one question:
If someone were about to kill or maim you or a loved one, would you quote Rothbard at them, or bash them in the head with any available blunt object?
MWD
Free Mind,
You make a very powerful case in libertarian theory. There is nothing there I can disagree with, except to say that in the course of life, there will be very few situations that will allow you to apply political or personal theory and have it work out perfectly. It is how we act in the “no-win” situations that demonstrate our character. When viewing a call to the police as utilizing coercive force of government or doing what is possible to stop the gang situation you presented yourself, one must choose the lesser of two evils. There is and always will be evil in the world, and we will always be faced with choices between two less than ideal situations. It is making a choice when the right answer is not clear that shows we can be a moral people.
Michael:
Of course the moral thing to do, out of those two choices, is to “bash them in the head with any available blunt object” as you said, or something similar. I’m not really sure how this is relevant, however. My point is not that we should become irrational pacifists, only that “not accepting aggression” in our system of values is inherent to the Non-Aggression Principle, thus making your ZAP2.0 a redundancy in that way, and many times irrational (as in my example of running over and getting yourself shot, as well as why it would necessarily morally bar you from calling the cops, driving on public roads, utilizing public education, spending Federal Reserve notes, etc) and thus not a good guiding force for moral action—at least not one that can be followed consistently enough to truly be a principle. After all, let’s say that blunt object was stolen by another person, and placed there. If you truly refused to “accept” aggression in the way that a vegan refuses to accept what they see as abuses of “animal rights”, you couldn’t use that blunt object. But I guess you’d agree with me, too, that that really doesn’t matter when it comes down to it, seeing as you didn’t do the stealing—thus where the “ZAP2.0″ falls short.
Westbound:
I agree with your general premise. I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment of these being “no-win situations”, but that’s another issue for another day. Your point of disagreement, however, actually seems to be a reaffirmation of my argument as to why we cannot rationally follow the veganesque nature of the ZAP2.0 consistently enough for it to be truly called a “moral principle.” There are far far far fewer (and arguably—as in, I would argue—no) counterexamples to the non-aggression principle, and thus it is a much more valid and sound code when dealing with political issues.