Politics: "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individual or parties having or hoping to achieve power."
Source: The Economist - Getty Images
As an anarcho-capitalist,
my political philosophy is based around one single premise. This premise holds incredible power and is unquestionably the only moral idea in all of the political realm. It's a single idea that can free man from the chains that bind him to government as well as the related and unnecessary degradation in quality of life.
"But James! What single idea could be so great that it informs your entire political philosophy? What single idea could account for every different situation and scenario that those who engage in politics wield power over?"
Well boy, oh boy, am I glad you asked. This idea can be stated in one short sentence:
No human can legitimately initiate force against another human.
Yes, this is very clearly the non-aggression principle (NAP), which is the backbone of the modern libertarian ideology. This postulation holds true not only for the initiation of force from one man to another, but from one man to another man's property - a metaphorical extension of the self. You are not your physical body, and as a practicing Stoic I keep this in mind daily.
Sickness is a hindrance to the body, but not to your ability to choose, unless that is your choice. Lameness is a hindrance to the leg, but not to your ability to choose. Say this to yourself with regard to everything that happens, then you will see such obstacles as hindrances to something else, but not to yourself.
- The Enchiridion, by Epictetus
If the initiation of force against your body is illegitimate and immoral, your body being that which is essentially direct natural property of your consciousness, then it follows without question that any other property that which you have possession of and did not obtain through illegitimate use of force is an extension of that which is protected by the NAP.
The NAP is absolute.
Strict Libertarians, of the "big L" variety, follow this conclusion as far as their fear and utilitarian moral philosophy allows them to. They believe that government can be legitimate and can exercise force in legitimate venues, such as protecting personal property rights, defending a nation from foreign invaders, breaking up monopolies, and generating income for public works projects that do not require taxation.
The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property.
- Libertarian Party Platform, 2016
This is disingenuous, as following the NAP to its logical conclusion brings you to understand that no organization or individual can claim a monopoly on force of any kind. Claiming a monopoly on force in at least some aspects of the political sphere of influence is mutually inclusive to the existence of a government. The question becomes whether it is "okay" to accept the immoral nature of the existence of government in order to benefit from its utilitarian benefits. I would argue that the answer to that question is absolutely not.
Come on, try me.
A lot of my life entails thoughts on philosophy, politics, technology, and psychology. I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read this and would love to hear your thoughts on why you agree with or disagree with the fundamental ideas surrounding the NAP.