Pre-Header Tagline

You don't coerce or injure others. Why can politicians do it?
Against Anarchy

Is the Zero Aggression Principle anarchistic?

If the Zero Aggression Principle was the law of the land then politicians could not initiate force. They could only use force defensively. Some claim this makes Zero Aggression anarchistic. In popular usage “anarchy” means no governing institutions, with violence and chaos to follow. But to us…

Legitimate government only uses force defensively, and that’s precisely the kind of governance we want. To us, initiated force is criminal, and negates the very purpose of government. Seen in this way…

Congress and the President better fit the popular understanding of anarchy. These sons and daughters of anarchy…

  • Cannot be ruled — the electorate lacks real power to restrain or direct them
  • Break laws, starting with the Constitution
  • Routinely commit crimes, including theft, murder, counterfeiting, kidnapping, extortion, and fraud

We want to counter this Statist Anarchy by promoting non-state institutions of governance that compete to serve customers. This means we want more institutions of governance, not less. And what anarchist wants more governments? Turn it around…

The State is anarchistic, not the Zero Aggression Principle.

By Perry Willis & Jim Babka

Polling Slider


69 Responses to "Is the Zero Aggression Principle anarchistic?"

Leave a reply