It is something I believe so strongly that I made it the second essential tenet of my world view: Interact with love, not force or violence.
You make no friends using force or violence; coercion can only silence your enemies, it will not convert them.
Through the years this has not stopped people who have set themselves above the rest of us from using force to impose their will. But while they may have changed the behavior of their subjects by using violence – or a very real threat of violence – they did not affect what was inside those beaten subjects.
All they created were dead enemies – or defeated enemies who avenged violence with violence at the first opportunity. And so the cycle has continued for centuries.
Only love can make a friend; it is that much more powerful than hate. Deploying love takes patience, forgiveness and a discipline that feels counterintuitive and defies human nature at times. But it is the only sure way to resolve a conflict. People respond in kind: Force your will on them, and they will eventually respond with force. Treat people with love and respect – even (or perhaps especially) those who wish you harm – and they will eventually respond with love and respect.
Early on I adopted what a long-ago philosopher called the Zero Aggression Principle – no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor should anyone advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
I have always believed that a society based on that principle likely would not even need a government to keep the peace or secure liberty. I must confess I never expected I’d have the opportunity in my lifetime to test that theory.
Entry 76
Showing posts with label Zero Aggression Principle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zero Aggression Principle. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Entry 58. Sides are chosen
And so it was war. True was not going to sit by and let the natives blow up his troops. Curfews were set and a force was sent after the people considered most likely to have set the bomb. But the force was met by a greater one, and Lt. True lost more personnel – and so did the natives.
The eye-for-an-eye escalated. and it was not long before we had a full-fledged series of battles on our hands, with men, women and children dying and property being destroyed.
By the time my class met for the next time, the idea of noncooperation was well on its way to dying of neglect. Somewhat painful was the identity of the student who led the argument against me.
“What option do we have?” Buffalo Springsteen said, her eyes flashing but her voice betraying an almost apologetic tone. “When the tyrant invades your home, you have to repel him, and people will be hurt.”
“People will die,” another student said – I should have noticed who, but I didn’t.
“Yep, people will die, maybe some of us, maybe even me,” she said. “But that’s the price of freedom. That’s been the price of freedom through the ages.”
I value the right of disagreement, and so I love it when students listen to me carefully and form their own opinions anyway. But the applause that greeted Buffalo stung a little.
“Dying for a cause is a noble thing,” I said. “And defending yourself against a violent attack often requires a return of force. But going so far as to take lives is a very serious proposition.”
“What else are we supposed to do?” cried Carson McGillicudy. “They started this thing.”
“And with every death their will to finish it becomes more secure,” I said. “You may convince them to leave eventually, but they die and they fly away more convinced than ever that Sirius 4 should be an Earthian possession. And we have maintained the precedent that killing for a noble cause is acceptable. When does the cycle of violence stop?”
“‘When it’s kill or be killed, there must be a third alternative,’” Buffalo quoted me. “You said the alternative would present itself when the time comes. Well, time’s up, they’re killing people, they’re coming for us – what’s the third way?”
“I’ve told you – noncooperation. They can’t force a whole planet of individuals to recognize their authority if we choose not to.”
“What, just ignore them?” Carson said. “What do you do when a soldier sticks the barrel of a gun in your face and tells you to obey?”
“You refuse. You push the barrel aside and tell him no. You defend yourself if you must, but you stop short of killing him,” I said. “If he dies, he dies believing you were wrong, and his survivors will believe the same even more, and they’ll be back to punish you, and then your survivors will punish them and on and on. The only way to stop the cycle is to make your case without killing.”
“You have a great theory and maybe someday humanity will be ready for it, but this is not that day,” Buffalo Springsteen said, and her eyes had softened. “There’s a time for theories, and there’s a time for taking up arms. I’m taking up arms.”
I presume there was another burst of applause and more conversation before the class broke up, but my memory of that day ends there for the most part. When the flames of war are rising, the Great Cause is seen as more important than the concerns of a young couple, but that rarely softens the pain of separation. And in this case, I didn’t see how she and I could ever be the same.
Entry 59
The eye-for-an-eye escalated. and it was not long before we had a full-fledged series of battles on our hands, with men, women and children dying and property being destroyed.
By the time my class met for the next time, the idea of noncooperation was well on its way to dying of neglect. Somewhat painful was the identity of the student who led the argument against me.
“What option do we have?” Buffalo Springsteen said, her eyes flashing but her voice betraying an almost apologetic tone. “When the tyrant invades your home, you have to repel him, and people will be hurt.”
“People will die,” another student said – I should have noticed who, but I didn’t.
“Yep, people will die, maybe some of us, maybe even me,” she said. “But that’s the price of freedom. That’s been the price of freedom through the ages.”
I value the right of disagreement, and so I love it when students listen to me carefully and form their own opinions anyway. But the applause that greeted Buffalo stung a little.
“Dying for a cause is a noble thing,” I said. “And defending yourself against a violent attack often requires a return of force. But going so far as to take lives is a very serious proposition.”
“What else are we supposed to do?” cried Carson McGillicudy. “They started this thing.”
“And with every death their will to finish it becomes more secure,” I said. “You may convince them to leave eventually, but they die and they fly away more convinced than ever that Sirius 4 should be an Earthian possession. And we have maintained the precedent that killing for a noble cause is acceptable. When does the cycle of violence stop?”
“‘When it’s kill or be killed, there must be a third alternative,’” Buffalo quoted me. “You said the alternative would present itself when the time comes. Well, time’s up, they’re killing people, they’re coming for us – what’s the third way?”
“I’ve told you – noncooperation. They can’t force a whole planet of individuals to recognize their authority if we choose not to.”
“What, just ignore them?” Carson said. “What do you do when a soldier sticks the barrel of a gun in your face and tells you to obey?”
“You refuse. You push the barrel aside and tell him no. You defend yourself if you must, but you stop short of killing him,” I said. “If he dies, he dies believing you were wrong, and his survivors will believe the same even more, and they’ll be back to punish you, and then your survivors will punish them and on and on. The only way to stop the cycle is to make your case without killing.”
“You have a great theory and maybe someday humanity will be ready for it, but this is not that day,” Buffalo Springsteen said, and her eyes had softened. “There’s a time for theories, and there’s a time for taking up arms. I’m taking up arms.”
I presume there was another burst of applause and more conversation before the class broke up, but my memory of that day ends there for the most part. When the flames of war are rising, the Great Cause is seen as more important than the concerns of a young couple, but that rarely softens the pain of separation. And in this case, I didn’t see how she and I could ever be the same.
Entry 59
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Entry 48. Dinner and premonitions
“So how goes the historic independence talks?” I asked Senator Badiah Sinclair as I poured myself another glass of water. The restaurant had the best panned-fried marleye anywhere, captured fresh from Lake Ptolemy, and a good seafood meal always left me relaxed and satisfied.
From the look on Badi’s face I could tell my question was not unexpected but also not terribly welcome. I saw a mixture of frustration and annoyance and even a little embarrassment.
“I’m not sure anymore that these negotiations will bring us independence in our lifetime,” he said bitterly. “The Earthians are playing games with us. They like collecting our taxes enough to placate us with nice words about freedom, but they don’t actually trust us with the tools of freedom and self-determination.”
“That’s what all governments are about in the end, treading that fine line between making people feel free enough but not so free that they actually have control of their own lives,” I suggested.
“Oh, you’ll always need governments to achieve justice and keep the peace,” Badi said. “But Sirius 4 needs to have our own government. I’m beginning to despair we’ll get that without guns and lasers and bombs, though.”
I let him stew a moment to make sure I phrased my response precisely.
“Badi,” I said, “In the end a just society can only be built on voluntary interactions between peaceful people.”
I didn’t think the statement was particularly funny or ignorant, but Badiah snorted dismissively.
“Come on, Ray,” he said. “while we’re at it let’s purge humanity of greed and ambition and, I don’t know, pure evil. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Earthians conjure up some sort of phony incident as an excuse to kill someone, punish us for daring to think we could survive without them.”
“I think almost everyone’s primary motivation is to lead the best life possible and be left alone,” I insisted.
“Almost everyone, that’s right,” Badi said. “You’re always going to need a government for no other reason than to keep the greedy and the selfish from preying on the rest of us.”
“You might be right,” I said, “but wouldn’t it be fun to try? And who better to try it than the pioneer stock we have here on Sirius 4?”
He looked at me as if he had accidentally stumbled into a psychiatric ward occupied by the harmless but completely daft.
“Nice dream, professor,” he said. “But it’s not a theory that would get very far in the real world.”
“Assistant professor,” I said with a grin, and we moved on to less weighty subjects, unaware that we had just roughly outlined the next nine years of our lives.
Entry 49. Like hell
From the look on Badi’s face I could tell my question was not unexpected but also not terribly welcome. I saw a mixture of frustration and annoyance and even a little embarrassment.
“I’m not sure anymore that these negotiations will bring us independence in our lifetime,” he said bitterly. “The Earthians are playing games with us. They like collecting our taxes enough to placate us with nice words about freedom, but they don’t actually trust us with the tools of freedom and self-determination.”
“That’s what all governments are about in the end, treading that fine line between making people feel free enough but not so free that they actually have control of their own lives,” I suggested.
“Oh, you’ll always need governments to achieve justice and keep the peace,” Badi said. “But Sirius 4 needs to have our own government. I’m beginning to despair we’ll get that without guns and lasers and bombs, though.”
I let him stew a moment to make sure I phrased my response precisely.
“Badi,” I said, “In the end a just society can only be built on voluntary interactions between peaceful people.”
I didn’t think the statement was particularly funny or ignorant, but Badiah snorted dismissively.
“Come on, Ray,” he said. “while we’re at it let’s purge humanity of greed and ambition and, I don’t know, pure evil. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Earthians conjure up some sort of phony incident as an excuse to kill someone, punish us for daring to think we could survive without them.”
“I think almost everyone’s primary motivation is to lead the best life possible and be left alone,” I insisted.
“Almost everyone, that’s right,” Badi said. “You’re always going to need a government for no other reason than to keep the greedy and the selfish from preying on the rest of us.”
“You might be right,” I said, “but wouldn’t it be fun to try? And who better to try it than the pioneer stock we have here on Sirius 4?”
He looked at me as if he had accidentally stumbled into a psychiatric ward occupied by the harmless but completely daft.
“Nice dream, professor,” he said. “But it’s not a theory that would get very far in the real world.”
“Assistant professor,” I said with a grin, and we moved on to less weighty subjects, unaware that we had just roughly outlined the next nine years of our lives.
Entry 49. Like hell
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Guest commentary
EDITORS' NOTE: We apologize for the lack of a new blog entry today. Even these years later, Ray Kaliber occasionally still suffers from some medical issues related to his wound, and as a result he was unable to prepare a blog entry for today. It is his hope to be well enough to continue his memoirs tomorrow. In the meantime here is an excerpt from a possible preface to the book that we have been preparing.
Hundreds of years ago American presidents named Garfield and McKinley were assassinated by violent men who called themselves anarchists and wanted to throw the government into chaos. Another of these violent men killed an arch-duke and started a World War. It’s a bit ironic that we’ve come to a point where an assassin aimed to kill a man who replaced chaos caused by government with a nonviolent state of what some people might call anarchy.
Let’s get one thing straight from the start: Despite everything that’s been written about him — and most of it is true — Raymond Douglas Kaliber was not a saint. He probably would be the first one to tell you that. But what he managed to show about the need for bosses probably qualified him for sainthood in half the religions in the galaxy, and the other half are the religions for people who are clueless to begin with, if you don’t mind my saying so.
Who am I to say so? That’s a great question. You should never take my word for it. Everything in this book is the truth as Ray and other people told me, but it’s filtered by their point of view and then filtered again by mine.
See, that’s just the beauty of what Ray had to show us. What I’m going to tell you about in this book is my educated opinion. And you’re not going to get the complete picture of Raymond Kaliber from one darn book, so go educate yourself fully about the man and draw your own conclusions.
“I think I’m onto something,” Kaliber would tell anyone willing to listen, “but never take one guy’s word for anything. Check it out yourself.” The good news for Sirius 4 is eventually, enough people listened to him and checked it out to make a difference in the long run.
Hundreds of years ago American presidents named Garfield and McKinley were assassinated by violent men who called themselves anarchists and wanted to throw the government into chaos. Another of these violent men killed an arch-duke and started a World War. It’s a bit ironic that we’ve come to a point where an assassin aimed to kill a man who replaced chaos caused by government with a nonviolent state of what some people might call anarchy.
Let’s get one thing straight from the start: Despite everything that’s been written about him — and most of it is true — Raymond Douglas Kaliber was not a saint. He probably would be the first one to tell you that. But what he managed to show about the need for bosses probably qualified him for sainthood in half the religions in the galaxy, and the other half are the religions for people who are clueless to begin with, if you don’t mind my saying so.
Who am I to say so? That’s a great question. You should never take my word for it. Everything in this book is the truth as Ray and other people told me, but it’s filtered by their point of view and then filtered again by mine.
See, that’s just the beauty of what Ray had to show us. What I’m going to tell you about in this book is my educated opinion. And you’re not going to get the complete picture of Raymond Kaliber from one darn book, so go educate yourself fully about the man and draw your own conclusions.
“I think I’m onto something,” Kaliber would tell anyone willing to listen, “but never take one guy’s word for anything. Check it out yourself.” The good news for Sirius 4 is eventually, enough people listened to him and checked it out to make a difference in the long run.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Entry 29. Change the question
Talking out how the Commonwealth of Sirius 4 could operate was a very interesting exercise – although not as interesting as living it out has proven to be.
We changed the question. No longer did we debate “Is this a proper function of government?” It became “Do you even need to establish a government to perform that function?” The more we talked, the more it became clear that in every case, every function, the answer was no.
With a general agreement in the Zero Aggression Principle, even keeping the peace did not require hiring a security force. Nor did it entail wild shootouts and what used to be called “lawlessness.” Informed and educated adults, it seems, have the ability to police themselves – a concept that defenders of the concept of government found astonishing.
One of the deepest and longest conversations we had was about having a “transition period.” Several respected senators argued that before you can reach the ideal of a society based on liberty and mutual respect, there must be a period of transformation where we are slowly weaned from the coercive government state to a condition of freedom.
“The inequitable advantage the haves gained over the have-nots through the years by the use of government force requires an in-between time where justice is done to these economic criminals,” Senator Gaylord McBride said, and with many eloquent words and arguments.
On the other side there was the matter of the tenets that I proposed we use as a supplement to the concept of zero aggression, starting with “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There was much resistance to the thought that our neighbors include our one-time enemies and oppressors. How can we forgive these people? I made a breakthrough when I pointed out that forgiveness carries no obligation to continue to do business with these people. No one is forced to buy their products or services anymore – the coercion is lifted.
In the end there was mutual agreement – we could not have proceeded without mutual agreement, of course, that was the whole idea – that the “haves” who gamed the coercive system had already received justice through the violent, imaginary revolution and the actual revolution that followed, and the “haves” who earned what they had by selling quality products and services to the rest of us had received justice by becoming wealthy.
This turned out to be an incentive for quite a number of people, who once manipulated the laws for their own purposes, to start making an honest living.
The “transition period” lasted a matter of days, if that. I was able to use the circumstances of my arrest and trial as a perfect example of what I was advocating.
My editors have intervened at this point. They have been patient as I jump back and forth in time writing this memoir, but they argue that expanding on my point about the trial would constitute a “spoiler,” giving away an essential detail about my life before the reader knows many other essential foundational and background details. I have argued that no one will be interested in reading my memoir who is not already familiar with my life, but I yield to their concern.
Entry 30. After winter
We changed the question. No longer did we debate “Is this a proper function of government?” It became “Do you even need to establish a government to perform that function?” The more we talked, the more it became clear that in every case, every function, the answer was no.
With a general agreement in the Zero Aggression Principle, even keeping the peace did not require hiring a security force. Nor did it entail wild shootouts and what used to be called “lawlessness.” Informed and educated adults, it seems, have the ability to police themselves – a concept that defenders of the concept of government found astonishing.
One of the deepest and longest conversations we had was about having a “transition period.” Several respected senators argued that before you can reach the ideal of a society based on liberty and mutual respect, there must be a period of transformation where we are slowly weaned from the coercive government state to a condition of freedom.
“The inequitable advantage the haves gained over the have-nots through the years by the use of government force requires an in-between time where justice is done to these economic criminals,” Senator Gaylord McBride said, and with many eloquent words and arguments.
On the other side there was the matter of the tenets that I proposed we use as a supplement to the concept of zero aggression, starting with “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There was much resistance to the thought that our neighbors include our one-time enemies and oppressors. How can we forgive these people? I made a breakthrough when I pointed out that forgiveness carries no obligation to continue to do business with these people. No one is forced to buy their products or services anymore – the coercion is lifted.
In the end there was mutual agreement – we could not have proceeded without mutual agreement, of course, that was the whole idea – that the “haves” who gamed the coercive system had already received justice through the violent, imaginary revolution and the actual revolution that followed, and the “haves” who earned what they had by selling quality products and services to the rest of us had received justice by becoming wealthy.
This turned out to be an incentive for quite a number of people, who once manipulated the laws for their own purposes, to start making an honest living.
The “transition period” lasted a matter of days, if that. I was able to use the circumstances of my arrest and trial as a perfect example of what I was advocating.
My editors have intervened at this point. They have been patient as I jump back and forth in time writing this memoir, but they argue that expanding on my point about the trial would constitute a “spoiler,” giving away an essential detail about my life before the reader knows many other essential foundational and background details. I have argued that no one will be interested in reading my memoir who is not already familiar with my life, but I yield to their concern.
Entry 30. After winter
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Entry 18. A call to unarmed revolution
This is the statement I read and released after Badiah Sinclair began to implement the Austerity Initiative in S4Y 144. Badi was not happy with me, but the concept started to resonate with people.
The trouble with killing people to make your point is that the argument that started the fight is still breathing.
The Earthians who invaded us were doing the will of people who sincerely believed Sirius 4 was Earth's property. They killed some of us to make their point, but that only made us believe more fervently in our independence. We killed more of them to drive them away, but that only made them want our world even more.
No, not until we sat down and talked – setting aside our weapons but with the threat of more violence as the alternative – did Earth agree to let our experiment in freedom continue.
But now that freedom won with violence is being stripped with violence – oh, perhaps not literally, but with the same old threat of force that governments have always hung over us. What if we struck back in a way that does not meet violence with violence? What if we simply choose to live free, simply ignoring these onerous attempts to curb our liberty, promising not to kill our oppressors but to love them, to return force with a smile, violence with nonviolence, simply refusing to follow their unjust rules? What if we just stopped cooperating?
Using violence we won an imaginary victory over a violent tyranny, and knowing only violence, that which replaced the foreign tyrant has become a domestic tyrant. Now we need a second revolution – a rebellion over our violent nature – to secure our freedom for a much longer term.
I have no illusion that such a revolution would still carry the threat of violence in the background. Taking back what rightfully belongs to us by force is always an option, but that would merely prolong the cycle of violence. True security only comes when we appeal to our better angels, when we take the alternative of violence off the table, when we agree to the principle that no one has a right of aggression over others.
Only when that principle prevails above all others will the cycle of violence be broken and will we be able to enjoy this common wealth of Sirius 4 in peace and prosperity.
Entry 19. Basics of imaginary physics
The trouble with killing people to make your point is that the argument that started the fight is still breathing.
The Earthians who invaded us were doing the will of people who sincerely believed Sirius 4 was Earth's property. They killed some of us to make their point, but that only made us believe more fervently in our independence. We killed more of them to drive them away, but that only made them want our world even more.
No, not until we sat down and talked – setting aside our weapons but with the threat of more violence as the alternative – did Earth agree to let our experiment in freedom continue.
But now that freedom won with violence is being stripped with violence – oh, perhaps not literally, but with the same old threat of force that governments have always hung over us. What if we struck back in a way that does not meet violence with violence? What if we simply choose to live free, simply ignoring these onerous attempts to curb our liberty, promising not to kill our oppressors but to love them, to return force with a smile, violence with nonviolence, simply refusing to follow their unjust rules? What if we just stopped cooperating?
Using violence we won an imaginary victory over a violent tyranny, and knowing only violence, that which replaced the foreign tyrant has become a domestic tyrant. Now we need a second revolution – a rebellion over our violent nature – to secure our freedom for a much longer term.
I have no illusion that such a revolution would still carry the threat of violence in the background. Taking back what rightfully belongs to us by force is always an option, but that would merely prolong the cycle of violence. True security only comes when we appeal to our better angels, when we take the alternative of violence off the table, when we agree to the principle that no one has a right of aggression over others.
Only when that principle prevails above all others will the cycle of violence be broken and will we be able to enjoy this common wealth of Sirius 4 in peace and prosperity.
Entry 19. Basics of imaginary physics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)