THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 446, December 2, 2007
"Socialists of a different color"
Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise
Regarding A.X. Perez's second letter to the Editor in TLE number 445:
I would like to excoriate, put down and generally disagree with Mr. Perez. Unfortunately, I can't, because he's right.
Instead, I would borrow his letter to use as a springboard. I hope he approves.
There are fundamental moral and philosophical differences between one who accepts collateral damage (wounded or dead third-parties or the destruction of their property) as a benefit of military conflict (he gets a sexual thrill out of it) and one who deplores such damage while accepting it as a necessary cost to prevent much worse damage as a result of failing to take defensive action.
The first person in the paragraph above is a politician. The second may be a libertarian.
This question has come up many times in the past. "Is it moral (or in accord with the ZAP) to kill one innocent person to prevent the deaths of thousands?" The answer I get from the libertarian purists is a resounding "No!". The answer from most conservatives I have talked to is "Yes!".
I think that, perhaps, it is necessary to take that question out of the moral and philosophical ivory tower and consider it in context. After all, the world that we live inand must fight inis nothing but context.
I am emotionally inclined to accept the purists answer, but I am then left with pacifism. Unfortunately, pacifism is tacit cooperation with evil. It is immoral, to me, to stand by and let evil triumph because I am not willing to take a chance on sullying my own hands with the blood of a very small number of innocents to prevent the genocide of hundreds of millionswhich is exactly what we are now facing.
That genocideof over 300,000,000 people in less than 100 yearsis historical fact. Six sevenths of it was not in war, but in the outright murder of domestic populations by governments in the last century. See Prof. Rummel's web site at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/. Prof. Rummel is a classical and conservative scientist. I think that his conclusions regarding the numbers are, as a consequence, very low.
Because I am a libertarian (and have dour-Scottish genes) I have no choice in the matter of opposing evil in the form of government, which is the greatest evil that mankind has ever seen or produced. To fail to oppose the evil of government would make me unable to look in the mirror without revulsion. I would be left with nothing but suicide to end the pain of self-hatred. I must oppose it to the extent that I am able. I must accept the risk of death for myself and innocent others. I must minimize it for innocent others to the extent that I can.
In order to do that I have done three things. I have sworn an oath to take the lives of the next government people that attack me; even if it means my death right then and there. I have acquired weapons to fight with and to leave to my friends to fight with after I am gone. The third thing, and I hope it is the best that I have done, is to make a new weapon for my allies in the form of a new way to fight. It is 5GW and is found in "Election and Revolution" in TLE issue #295.
The 5GW strategy is my effort to give a method of fighting the evil of all government with the least cost in innocent lives and treasure, with the least risk of collateral damage done by freedom-fighters, while giving the best chance of victory for the forces of freedom. It even addresses the "power vacuum" problem of all previous revolutions for freedom. It seems to me to be the best way to approach the world of "The Probability Broach" and maintain it over a long span of time.
I have been criticized by members of the freedom movement for advocating "murder" of politicians, and for inviting both collateral damage and reprisals from the enemy. In response, I would ask:
I used to be a minarchist because I could not find a way to preserve the peace after a successful freedom-revolution that removed the government. That was my answer to the "power vacuum" problem. I did not like it, but there seemed to be nothing better than repeating the last two and a half American centuries over and over again.
Now there is a method, "Assassination Politics"invented by Jim Bell, to solve that issue. It has not worked as a stand-alone solution because Mr. Bell trusted the politicians to obey their own law. It does not include a method of bringing the politicians to their knees so that a "Bell Memorial Foundation" might get started to prevent the reemergence of government. Combining it with the top-down order of battle (used by our predecessors in the first American Revolution, and outlined by John Ross in his seminal novel Unintended Consequences) just might work. That is what "Fifth Generation War" (5GW) is all about.
As Mr. Perez said, "people ain't eggs". They ain't chickens, neither.