NIF” to Me, This “Non-Initiation of Force” Principle Always by Curry B

Libertarians Should Avoid “NAP” in origin and meaning historically). Favor of “NIF” To me, this “Non-Initiation of Force” principle always by Curry B. Taylor sounded just, fair, and almost unassailable even when you got into the nitty-gritty of how it might be applied in the most About 6 or 7 years ago, by esoteric cases. I know some these days tend to feel the same my recollection, I started way about the “NAP”. To be sure, both phrases are alike in hearing this term “NAP” in many ways. Both refer to avoiding conflict, being thoughtful libertarian circles. I hadn't before being forceful or violent, and (implicitly) respecting heard that specific term other human beings and their rights. So what is the major before, although I have difference between the two phrases? Well, the “Non-Initiation been in the Party since the of Force” implies that there are cases in which force is early 2000s, and a justified. In my opinion, there are many such cases. Self- libertarian for a few years defense from an aggressively violent person is one obvious before that. The “Non- case. Self-defense from an aggressively violent state may also Aggression Principle”, or be such a case (again, subject to the definition of “force” and “NAP”, sounded well- perhaps “initiate”). A third case might be self-defense from an meaning but immediately invading army, and so forth. strange to me based upon my libertarian knowledge, readings, and introspection up until that point. The reason is simple, and I'll explain it here. In the inception days of the Libertarian Party in the early 70s, many of those folks who represented the core of the movement discussed a concept called the “Non-Initiation of Force”. That is, all actions were moral, and therefore legally justifiable, if they did not involve the initiation of force against another individual. (Of course, what constitutes “force” may be the subject of eternal debate, although I personally think it is clear if one takes the Lochean definition of individual rights: Life, Liberty, and Property, and understand what each of those terms objectively means. But I You can see the difference already: the Non-Initiation of Force digress.) This core group of premise includes the possibility of force in particular founders of the Libertarian Party situations, usually those involving self-defense of some kind. thought it extremely important This is completely consistent with libertarian values and that all stakeholders revere the ethics, in my view. By contrast, the “NAP” seems to imply that “Non-Initiation of Force” as the there are no situations at all in which aggression is justified. I highest ethical tenet in have heard defenders of the phrase “NAP”, when confronted Libertarian politics. So, they with this dilemma, freely admit that there are self-defense encapsulated the “Non-Initiation exceptions to the phrase. But they seem to lack concern about of Force” idea inside the Party's perhaps trying to find an alternative phrase, perhaps one with a basic infrastructure and few more decades of robust testing. In the worst case, the documents. It still exists today inside the Party's Statement of “NAP” appears to make libertarians look like pacifists, which Principles and inside the Party pledge, or oath, which all new we decidedly are not. (Some may argue for militia defense members must sign to affiliate with us (although the language versus state-controlled standing army defense, for example, behind the latter document may have a different pragmatic but that is beside the point.) Page 1 Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas December 2018 Kingdom, Canada, I propose that we readopt the India, etc.). In a “Non-Initiation of Force” recent parliamentary principle, with brand spanking- election, third party new catchy abbreviation “NIF” to candidates won 87 be super trendy in readying seats in the British ourselves to appeal to GenZ and House of Commons. the generation which comes after it. It has more history within the 4. I’ve seen LP, it's more accurate to speculation over why libertarianism, and it's more fun to the United States is say than “NAP”, which just makes different: control of you want to go to sleep and let the ballot access rules by government do what it wants. D and R legislators (I (Arguably, of course.) wonder if other countries do this too. Apparently it wasn’t Want to help with local LP activities? always this way in the U.S.); D and R The Marketing, Outreach, and Candidate Recruitment control of debate Committees are looking for more warm bodies to help participants; a with their efforts to build our party. There are a lot of ideas presidential instead of a parliamentary system; “a political to work on, but we need your help! Click on the link for plutocracy” without campaign spending limits, etc. I think we the committee you're interested in to e-mail the committee need to look more carefully at why the United States is chair! different. 5. The third parties that do best tend to be geographically concentrated (The Scottish Nationalist Party, George Wallace’s Some Brief Observations on the 2018 American Independent Party in the American south, and La Election Raza Unida in the American southwest). This is also often related to ethnic or nationalist “tribalism”. by Barry V. Smith 6. For whatever reason, people in the United States tend to see Some Brief Observations on the their party as an essential part of their personal identity. 2018 Election (And Third Parties Changing parties is almost unthinkable to them. in Other Elections): 7. Third parties with celebrity 1. An article in the current issue of candidates (Jesse Ventura, Ralph Reason, and other sources (I Nader, Teddy Roosevelt, Ross haven’t included footnotes) have Perot) tend to be more successful pointed out that although polls in the United States. show that many Americans want a third party, this hasn’t translated 8. Warning: When American third into more votes for third parties parties are successful, they have a (the recent election is an example). way of self-destructing. La Raza Unida fell apart because of 2. “Duverger’s Law” predicts that in a single-member-district, internal conflict, and internal winner-take-all (first-past-the-post) elections, such as we have conflict resulting from Jesse in the United States, voters will be reluctant to vote for third Ventura’s election as governor of party candidates, because it’s hard for more than two parties to Minnesota tore the Reform Party have a good chance to win a plurality vote. apart. Even when the Libertarian Party is most successful, our 3. However, the evidence is that, among countries with this success seems to aggravate our voting system, Duverger’s Law holds only in the United internal conflicts. States. Third parties win a significant number of elections in other countries with such an electoral system (United Obviously, these are just quickly dashed off observations, and Page 2 Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas December 2018 I haven’t had time to develop them, but I think they are worth those standards, and they write them in a way that best looking into. benefits themselves. The politicians simply rubber stamp the results. LPDC Membership Program! Want to help out the LPDC and at the same time get some Book Break: Your Libertarian Opinionizer’s Pick cool libertarian swag? Check out our contributor membership program! Bottleneckers: Gaming the Government for Power and Private Profit Written by the legal minds at the Why Libertarians Reject Government libertarian Institute for Justice (IJ) Building Codes and Licensing this book documents the many cases in which entrenched interest groups by Garry Reed manipulate the monopoly powers of government to block small companies and entrepreneurial Commentary From Your newcomers from competing with Libertarian Opinionizer them. “Licensing: when the “Bottleneckers” are the politically government takes away connected professionals and industry leaders who collude your right to do something with politicians to create the occupational licensing and sells it back to you.” — specifically designed to destroy jobs and business Internet meme opportunities in the name of “protecting” consumers. They make earning an honest living nearly illegal. IJ was created to fight them. Since 1998 the country of Haiti has been hit by ten hurricanes and other tropical storms and in 2010 it was devastated by a Buy Now massive 7.0 earthquake, followed by some 52 aftershocks. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest in the world. Since most of its homes are ramshackle dwellings and its infrastructure is inadequately built the result has been widespread destruction and thousands Get Government Monopoly out of Licensing of lives lost. Yet most people are apparently convinced that if government doesn’t license everything everyone does buildings will fall These natural disasters have prompted some observers to down, restaurants will poison people, doctors will kill people, wonder how a libertarian society would handle building codes lawyers will lose all their cases, haircutters will scalp us and and whether individual builders would be free to use the same everyone will drive drunk, drugged and distracted on the materials and foundational designs as buildings in Haiti, with wrong side of the roads. the same results. “Matt and Eric canvased neighborhoods To begin with, no piece of paper such as a building code can stop earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, and shoveled snow for money, until they widespread forest fires or other natural disasters that destroy were stopped by police” because they buildings and infrastructure and kill people. All licensing does didn’t have a license.

Load more