Two Sides of Libertarianism
by Joseph Rowlands
The essential principle behind libertarianism is usually considered the non-initiation-of-force (NIOF) principle. No man is morally permitted to initiate the use of force against another. This does an excellent job of differentiating the libertarian theory from most other political theories. It provides a limitation on the use of force that many other political systems can't meet. A dictatorship, where absolute power is granted to one man, violates this principle because the dictator is permitted to initiate force whenever he wants (barring a revolution, of course).
The principle of non-initiation of force works pretty well at differentiating libertarianism from other theories, but it tells only half the story. It emphasizes the kind of force that isn’t allowed, but says little about what force is allowed, let alone needed. As an example, pacifism also meets the criterion of NIOF by not allowing force in any circumstances, let alone as an initiation. The difference between libertarianism and pacifism is that libertarianism does call for the use of force when it comes to retaliation.
It can be easily argued that non-initiation of force implies that retaliatory force is okay. If you assume that an initiation of force is not permitted, then it means that retaliatory force would be necessary. It’s the only way to enforce the first.
The problem with this is that the NIOF principle concentrates on a lack of action. It says what you can’t do. Ethics, of which politics is a subsection, is about what you should do, not just what you shouldn't do. Because of this, the idea of retaliatory force is sometimes considered 'optional' under libertarianism. By saying you can’t initiate force, one leaves the whole question of retaliatory force in a vague area of ethics.
In the same way that altruism leaves large chunks of our day-to-day decisions unclear and in the realm of amorality where it doesn't matter what you do, NIOF's overemphasis on the non-initiation of force leaves the area of retaliatory force in the same no-man's land. It allows you to retaliate, but says nothing about whether you should or not.
This is an illusion generated by focusing on a kind of inaction. In reality, if you want to really disallow the initiation of force, you must use retaliatory force. It's not a morally optional choice that is irrelevant to libertarian politics. It is the essential principle of libertarian theory. Libertarianism is about using retaliatory force against an initiation of force. If you don’t use retaliatory force, you don't have libertarianism.
This goes back to the point about pacifism. Pacifism does nothing to protect individual rights. The fact that a Pacifist is against the initiation of force does nothing to protect our rights. And neither does a 'libertarian' government that doesn’t retaliate. In theory, they're both fantasies of a world without violence. In practice, they’re blank checks to any thug willing to use violence to get his way.
The distinguishing feature of libertarianism is not just that you can't be the first to use force, but that if you do, force will be used against you in return. A more accurate way to describe the political theory is that it requires the use of retaliatory force. This provides the ethical principle that to retain your rights, you must be willing to fight for them.
Discuss this Article (5 messages)
|
