Aggression? Or self-defense?

A guest commentary and more!

Tom Jefferson described liberty and how laws did not sustain and support liberty, because tyrants used law just as much (or more) than lovers of liberty did.

“How keep under control the men entrusted with the handling of the government apparatus lest they turn their weapons against those whom they were expected to serve? The main political problem is how to prevent the rulers from becoming despots and enslaving the citizenry. Defense of the individual’s liberty against the encroachment of tyrannical governments is the essential theme of the history of Western civilization. The characteristic feature of the Occident is its peoples’ pursuit of liberty, a concern unknown to Orientals. All the marvelous achievements of Western civilization are fruits grown on the tree of liberty.” ~ chapter 21, Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises, AD1912

Obviously, free-market/free-enterprise anarchists (like us at TPOL) believe we have come up with the answer to Von Mises’ “main political problem.” Get rid of mandatory human government! Now, we understand that such a statement is considered “extremist” and not viewed as either feasible or desirable by the general public. And certainly not by those in power. So we are condemned when we act to provide that situation, in word or deed.

And that is the point of the question: when we resist human government and human governors (political rulers) are we acting in self-defense, or are we taking aggressive action against them, and those who support them? Is it extreme to take action against the system?

The same thing was claimed about such radical ideas as separating “church” (organized religion) and “state” (human government). The idea that a king or legislature or council should be able to recognize a particular religion or denomination as the only legal religion in their jurisdiction was essential (we were told) to order and decency. Well, it took a while but those claims were proven to be false.

On the other side of the coin, those human governments that sought to outlaw religion entirely also demonstrated the foolishness of the idea. The government(s) become objects of worship: in fact, such is encouraged in many such authoritarian societies. Which quickly become more and more authoritarian, even tyrannical.

What those governments did was substitute worship of the state for worship of a deity or deity. In essence, this is the same thing that virtually all oriental governments did. And a good many occidental governments. Tom Jefferson recognized both those facts. The “divine right of kings” doctrine is different on in the paint job from the “emperor/shah/pharaoh is a god” idea. And as time goes on, the despotism increases, the degree of slavery grows.

Tom and Ludwig are also right about the history of Western civilization. It has been (and remains) a constant defending against the stealing away of individual’s liberty. Often while claiming otherwise. And they are absolutely correct: the “marvelous achievements” are indeed the fruit we have plucked from the tree of liberty. Not just social and political achievements, but technological achievements. While we can (and should) recognize and honor achievements of Oriental societies and governments that were tyrannical which have contributed to the spiritual, moral, and physical conditions of both their people and those of the whole world, we see that Western civilization, despite its serious flaws, has done much, much more.

We submit that this is because of the entire orientation of Western civilization. Not just its institutions and actions, achievements and failures, but its very foundation. We at The Price of Liberty attribute this to the ideal that we human beings are responsible to our Creator for our individual actions, which therefore requires individual liberty to make the decisions for those actions. (We realize other lovers of liberty may attribute this to different sources. But all lovers of liberty are that: we love human liberty and recognize the importance of law and responsibility.)

Lovers of liberty, even when it is necessary to respond to government agents with violence, should be and are acting in defense of liberty. That is, in self-defense. In defense of true civilization. Not aggression, but a response to aggression.

Afterword: For some contrasts between East and West, consider: Dinah Shore singing “Buttons and Bows” and Rudyard Kipling’s immortal poem, The Ballad of East and West.

READ MORE