It’s been forty years and the Libertarian Party is no closer to winning an election now than they were in 1980. Perhaps something they’re doing isn’t working. Perhaps focusing on obscure ideological concepts isn’t the best strategy for winning a general election. That’s at least what the top three Libertarian Party Presidential candidates are saying. Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, and John McAfee agree that the Non-Aggression Principle, one of these unrelatable abstract constraints, is completely irrelevant in a general election. And they’re right. The NAP is an interesting guideline with potential applications but it isn’t the be-all and end-all libertarian philosophy. Nor is an idea that 99% of the public will ever care to understand.
In order to become a major party Libertarians have to start acting like one. That means focusing on what libertarian ideas actually mean for the general public and the country at large. That is how people vote and how they will continue to vote. The NAP does not fit into that context and it never will. It’s a nice topic for the university philosophy department to debate but it doesn’t help Joe the Plumber understand how libertarianism can help him get a job. The NAP goes right over his head as it does for almost all Americans and for good reason:
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is an ethical and moral principle that aims to avoid conflict between individuals by prohibiting crimes like theft and murder. The principle asserts aggression is always an illegitimate encroachment upon another individual’s life, liberty, or property, or attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained. For example, the NAP prohibits the initiation of force by one individual or group of individuals against another individual or group of individuals.
Its theoretical application makes sense but that will never be grasped by ordinary Americans. Gary Johnson recently made this same argument at a recent Libertarian Party debate. When asked about the NAP he made the point that “it’s not something that I engage in conversation with people [about]”. He is right in saying it’s not something that will convince people to vote Libertarian in November. John McAfee has made similar arguments in previous statements and debates.
Austin Petersen has taken a lot of undeserved flack from hardcore Libertarians for the same sort of statements. Although, he has gone further and rightfully criticized the inconsistencies with the Non-Aggression Principle regarding pollution and starvation. Nonetheless, his criticisms are legitimate and the purist echo chamber that denounces him should reexamine their group think.
When the three leading Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates, and thus the 96% of libertarians they represent, agree on something, perhaps it’s time for the party elite to come around. The Non-Aggression Principle is irrelevant to the voting public and should not be as dogmatically revered as it is now. It’s merely one piece of the larger puzzle that is libertarianism. Furthermore, it’s not the piece that will get the Libertarian Party 5% of the vote. Libertarians need to do a better job of explaining why our ideas will benefit average Americans instead of trying to explain abstruse doctrine.
The NAP is based on not being antagonistic or provoking anger or causing the need to be defensive. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do toward you. Instead it means that you have the right to live a life of your own Liberty as an individual and do not need to be involved in other People’s affairs. It is a laissez faire type attitude. Yet, once antogonized or provoked , you have every Right to defend your self in the best way possible. It does not mean that you have to carry around a loaded gun or constantly walk around performing karate stances. It does not mean the person is weak. It just means , don’t bother me and I will not bother you.
Rand Paul always says: 1st, Do no harm. He is a Republican.
There are a lot of debates of philosophy, religion, law, other types of government systems in the Libertarian Party, yet we have understood that because of certain limiting factors , that we may not make the US Presidential Office any time soon, though we can learn, grow, take lower level offices which actually have more influence with the individual citizen on a daily basis.
Everyone generally uses the NAP daily , though they do not realize it.
We need to do what works. I got out of political things because of all the idealism, which caused infighting and nothing ever got done. When I saw two libertarians “debating” ideal positions I just shake my head. They both can not be right but they can both be wrong. We need a functional system, not a philosophy class. If I wanted an engagement in philosophy I would take it up at my local university where the girls are cuter anyway.
It is important because statistics always seek to impose their will upon the people by FORCE, at the point of a gun. By adhering to the NAP, the Libertarian Party is telling the world they will not do this. It is a protection against DEMOCIDE.
The Non-Aggression Principle, which prohibits the initiation of the use of force, is the fundamental basis of libertarianism. The NAP underlies our positions on current public policy issues, but it is true that what will get voters to back us is if they agree with us on current issues, regardless of whether they understand our philosophy. Saying that we should concentrate on promoting our policy views, rather than abstract philosophy, does not mean that we should dump our philosophical principles.
I’ve always been a social Libertarian but have never felt the adherence to ideology, particularly in terms of economy, would have a positive practical outcome. To me it is wishful thinking rather than real policy to assume people will “do the right thing”. Gary Johnson has brought some practicality to the party. Former Governor he’s been there and knows that. As the party drifts towards being more practical on economic issues while still staunchly entrenched on civil liberties and individual freedoms I find voting Libertarian more and more my honest choice. Bernie Sanders is my first choice and he embodies many of the libertarian ideas I value. But if he can’t win the rigged primaries Johnson will once again have my full attention and my vote. The Republican party is well on their way to becoming un-electable due to their non-thinking adherence to ideologies which are loosely thought out at best. If Libertarians want to move into that slot they need to embrace practical realizations of the ideas they hold.
Bernie Sanders would only embody libertarian values that are the social liberal positions. You have to be fiscally conservative to be a libertarian by any definition I’m aware of. This article is a good idea mixed with toxic nonsense, we don’t have to compromise core principles to appeal to voters.
The Libertarian pledge, a statement individuals must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party of the United States, declares, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.” I think it is pretty straightforward. If you would violate that pledge then you would violate any other pledge. The core belief of the libertarian party is what makes a Libertarian party member. Choose to notfollow what you took an oath to and you are no party member. The NAP you can argue the philosophical questions of pollution etc… However that is not something even mentioned in the Libertarian party’s oath. If you would violate the oath however then you might as well create your own party or join the republicans as you might be better suited to their statist mindset. Rand Paul is no libertarian… Act like him and neither are you….
The general public never has and never will understand difficult philosophic concepts of any kind. That doesn’t count against the validity of the ideas, nor does it mean that they should cease being discussed, if more in simplified terms.
I mean, really, how about that highfalutn notion of freedom itself? Why bother to talk about that, either? It’s not like such advanced concepts of liberty or rights have any relevance to voting. As libertarians in the real world, we should confine ourselves to discussing the weather or reality TV.
That’s where the above argument logically takes us.
Though the current election cycle may actually disrupt our longstanding two-party system (and let’s all admit it – there are only two viable parties as of now), if big-L libertarians had any sense, they’d run as Republicans as Manchurian candidates. A hell of a lot of us small-l libertarian conservatives would really appreciate that. That’s what Ron and Rand have tried to do, with mixed success. Shit, for my money, Cruz is the closest viable thing to it. I know that his religion is a thing many L’s won’t like – it’s not my favorite thing either – but the current push is freedom, not social conservatism, IMO.
We are the party of principle for a reason. We have a central principle that anchors us and prevents us from drifting. The minute this party loses it’s anchor by throwing the NAP aside, I’ll go practice civil disobedience and leave politics to those who wish to pay attention to a master and ASK for our freedoms. “Legalize Freedom”? REALLY????
So you’re telling us Austin Petersen is right: All the LP has to do is drop that stupid, inconsistent idea that things like theft and murder are wrong, and millions of Americans will come running to join, donate, and vote for it. Who knew it was that simple?
Cool… now that the NAP is “irrelevant”, any corporation that pollutes my environment (which is violence/aggression against me) will suffer violence right the fuck back. Have a good one! #nottrolling
The minute we abandon our guiding principles is the minute we’re authoritarians just like the rest, enforcing “our” ideas because we think they are better. Couldn’t disagree with the Party more.
Right. Just dump principled action – like the donkeys and the elephants – and like them, become a party that seeks power, not justice. The Libertarian Party has been down that road (Bob Barr) and what did it get them? A well deserved scorn for being hypocrites without the benefit of ballot box improvement.
You do not need to explain NAP to Americans. Instead you take a stand and present solutions for each political issue using NAP as a foundation. For example instead of talking about how taxation violates NAP. Just simply say people should keep their entire paycheck they worked for and income taxes should be eliminated.
I have long observed that those who disparage the Non-Aggression Principle do so because they want to initiate force against certain people in certain circumstances for certain reasons they find compelling. I’ve seen nothing that contradicts this.
ok I’m done, the Libertarian party without the NAP is just another authoritarian 3rd party. You think abandoning your principles will win you elections? Sorry but the competition has got you beat, we already have plenty of unprincipled political parties. Goodbye.
What a gigantic steaming pile of bullmanure this nonsense is. Whoever the moron who wrote it is, should go back to the statits where they belong.