 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 627, July 10, 2011 "The US Constitution is a Trojan Horse"
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise The moral and philosophical cornerstone of the Unlimited Self Defense movement is the Zero Aggression Principle. The Zero Aggression Principle, Non-Aggression Principle, or Non-Coercion Principle, are all various means of expressing the same idea, namely that the singular logical, necessary, and natural restraint upon the unlimited autonomy of all humans is the prohibition against INITIATING force against the person or property of other humans, or delegating the initiation of said force to others. Advocates for Unlimited Self Defense recognize that humans are so widely varying in habits, tastes, modes of life, and beliefs that it is impossible to, in justice, set any other limitations upon their activity. Advocates for Unlimited Self Defense also recognize that humans are, among other things, the most lethal predators that have ever walked the Earth, and thus cannot exist peaceably WITHOUT reciprocal recognition of the rights of others. Advocates for Unlimited Self Defense hold that the peace, prosperity, and well-being of the humans in any society will, in the long run, directly correlate to the extent to which the humans and governments in that society abide by the Zero Aggression Principle. Advocates for Unlimited Self Defense furthermore recognize the
eternal truth best expressed by the Libertarian author L. Neil Smith,
who writes "...self-defense is an individual bodily function just
like eating, sleeping, eliminating, breathing, or making love. It
cannot be handed off to anybody else, no matter how flashy the
uniform, impressive the degree, authoritative the "expert", lopsided
the opinion poll, or intimidating the unconstitutional statute".
Advocates for Unlimited Self Defense regard personal self defense as provably the best and only practical solution to the problem of criminal activity and other varieties of force-initiation. It is a corollary of the Zero Aggression Principle that the initiator of force invalidates his own reciprocal rights when he initiates said force, and thus it is inappropriate, unnecessary, and positively morally wrong to legislate "levels of force" in self defense or to hold the defender to any standard other than "was force initiated against him or her?" We hold that a human is justified in using ANY level of force they judge necessary to defend person or property. Nor do we make any distinction between defense of person or property. The maintenance of human life demonstrably requires the artifacts of human creativity, i.e., property. It is clear that in many circumstances depriving a person of their property can lead to a decrease in their general welfare, health, even unto death. It is also an unassailable fact that, for the most part, humans have traded some portion of their finite life spans to acquire their property. Thus, once again, there is no moral difference between actions taken in defense of life and those taken in defense of property. Advocates for Unlimited Self Defense note with alarm that not only are inhabitants of the United States routinely deprived of the tools of self defense by state, federal, and local statutes, but they are also routinely deprived of autonomy and choice in how they defend their person and property by a web of legal tangles in regards to "levels of force" and justifications required for harming or killing their assailants. We hold that it profits a man or woman little to defend their person or property effectively, only to have life, liberty, or property deprived of them through by the state, either through a criminal conviction for defending yourself "too well", or simply through the cost of dealing with the legal proceedings brought against them by the state. Advocates of Self Defense note that all too often, the actions of a person forced to defend against attack will be second-guessed and analyzed by over-zealous prosecutors and judged by jurors, from the safety of hindsight. Often these persons have 0 experience any form of combat, or the adrenal effects resulting from combat. Therefore, a primary mission objective for Advocates of Unlimited Self Defense is the abolition of all statutes regarding "levels or force" or the like in self defense. Instead, we advocate that the singular standard for legal justification in the use of force, including lethal force, be the question "was force initiated against the person or their property?" In accordance with this principle, we advocate the passage of "Castle Doctrine" legislation, making the use of lethal force to eject or stop intruders in your home and/or car legal. Furthermore, because prosecutors have shown a tendency to claim episodes of self defense are actually "mutual combat", and because, in accordance with the Zero Aggression Principle we uphold the rights of humans to engage in ANY mutually consensual activity, we advocate in the the elimination of any and all laws against the practice of mutual combat. While the social utility of mutual combat/dueling is debatable, it is the logical extreme extension of the freedom of consenting humans to make their own choices, AND dissolving all prohibitions against mutual combat will once and for all put acts of self defense in the legal free and clear. As an added bonus, this measure will prevent those who practice martial arts or participate in extreme sports like the UFC from being harassed by busybodies who would take the freedom to choose their own risks away from them. As a secondary objective, Advocates for Unlimited Self defense seeks the abolition of all laws regarding possessing, carrying, buying, or selling weapons, not only guns, but ESPECIALLY other tools, such as sticks, canes, staffs, batons, knives, swords, flexible weapons, brass-knuckles, and etc, which are more heavily legislated against in many localities than firearms. Advocates for Unlimited Self defense pledge to utilize jury nullification, the right of jurors to judge the law itself, as well as the facts of the case, to acquit anyone charged with using "excessive force" in defense of their person or property, with peaceably carrying a weapon, or with "mutual combat". was this worth reading?
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations! |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next