Committing aggression is wrong. While using defensive force to stop aggressors is justified, violence is not justified against anyone who has not initiated force or fraud against someone else. This is called “the non-aggression principle” and it is the heart and soul of voluntaryism and libertarianism (notwithstanding the fact that many “Libertarians” still pretend that libertarianism can have anything to do with politics or “government”).
However, there is a common but false assumption still made by many libertarians and anarchists which is a residual result of their former statist thinking. A very common thought among statists is that, if something is unfair or unhealthy, then “there ought to be a law” to prevent that. This is why they find no problem with condoning “government” aggression being used to enforce “laws” prohibiting victimless “crimes.” They declare drugs to be unhealthy, so they think it’s okay for mercenaries of the state to kidnap and cage people for possessing “illegal” drugs. They think likewise about “vices” such as gambling and prostitution, among others.
So the default statist position is: if something is a bad idea, then why not “outlaw” it? After all, if “government” has a legitimate right to pass and enforce “laws” in the name of “the people,” why not use that power to persuade people to make better choices? The mentality can be summed up in one simple sentence:
If there’s something people shouldn’t do, then the law should forbid doing it.
But that sentiment is not only foolish; it is immoral and horrendously destructive. Most anarchists and voluntaryists already understand this, and understand why. (For those who don’t know the reason, I would suggest they read “The Most Dangerous Superstition.”)
However, some anarchists/libertarians/voluntaryists talk and act as if they believe the flip side of the very same bogus assumption. That flip side can be summed up like this:
If the law should not forbid something, then people should do it.
While this sentiment may be less potentially dangerous than its flip side, it is equally misguided and untrue. In other words, while “anything voluntary” should be allowed—meaning it should not be resisted with violence—it is not true that anything voluntary is actually a good idea, or a good thing to do.
To put it another way, people should absolutely be free, but free people also shouldn’t be stupid and careless. It seems that some people like to “celebrate” their freedom by constantly making stupid, short-sighted choices, and engaging in voluntary but mentally and/or physically unhealthy activities. Just as statists often obey just for the sake of obeying, some anarchists disobey just for the sake of disobeying. Ironically, they imagine that that makes them rebellious and independent, when really it is still allowing the order-issuers to control their behavior (albeit in a backwards way).
“You say I’m not allowed to smoke cigarettes? Well I’m going to rot my lungs out and kill myself just to spite you!”
This is still the mentality of an immature child. While people should be free to make smart or stupid choices, I would still suggest choosing the smart ones. For example, while any individual should absolutely be allowed to eat, drink or smoke whatever he wants, that doesn’t mean such choices are always intelligent, or should be praised. The individual’s exclusive right to make those choices should absolutely be zealously defended. But stupid or destructive choices, even if voluntary, are still a bad idea.
This may seem self-evident, and few people are likely to openly disagree. Nonetheless, there seems to be an almost subconscious tendency for some in “the freedom movement” to flaunt their short-sighted and careless irresponsibility, wearing it as a badge of honor, as if that is the measure of how much they like freedom. And that’s both silly and counter-productive, both in terms of your own health and well-being, and in terms of having anarchism publicly perceived as something more than a bunch of spoiled brats wanting no consequences for their boneheaded behavior.
It turns out that eating piles of unhealthy garbage, excessively using mind-altering substances, engaging in thoughtless random sex at every opportunity, and various other voluntary activities, aren’t actually very good for people (psychologically and/or physically). And this is true even though no one has the right forcibly prevent anyone from doing any of that. But this distinction seems lost even on some anarchists, who think that because people shouldn’t punish voluntary choices and behaviors, then the universe shouldn’t “punish” them either. But that is not how reality works.
So yes, anything and everything voluntary and consensual should be permitted (i.e., not forcibly prevented). But no, that does not mean that everything voluntary is a good idea. And if reality smacks you in the head for stupid but voluntary choices and behaviors, the non-aggression principle won’t protect you. Self-ownership means that no person should inflict suffering on you in response to any voluntary action. It does not mean that life won't inflict suffering on you for it.
As anarchism and voluntaryism spread and become more and more mainstream, the “movement” is likely to do more “growing up.” Instead of so many pro-freedom folks behaving like short-sighted, careless children, whose entire decision-making process is based on the question, “What can I get away with?” they can and will start thinking and acting more like responsible adults, based on the question, “What choices are best for me, and for others?” (Mind you, those “best choices” will still likely include a fair amount of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I'm not saying people need to be uptight prudes.) Until then, unfortunately, to many statists, the image of anarchism might come across as, “Look how care-free, empty-headed, impatient, irresponsible and impulse-driven I am!”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "[email protected]" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)
