Right to life Principle
The much hailed ’non-aggression principle’ must follow what I will name as the right to life principle. As discussed in last week’s post, Foster Gamble described the non-aggression principle as a ‘Liberty Perspective.’ His astute observation is very worthy of further examination as a right to life principle.
Before the matter of ‘aggression’ can be discussed, proper context comes first. It is possible to aggressively attack a homework assignment, sports training, or a hearty meal after a week in the woods. Such aggression is not one of violence, instead dedication, commitment or voracity. Non-aggression in those contexts makes no sense because it denies the intention. Many who champion the principle of non-aggression fail to make this distinction.
To describe non-aggression as ‘one person interfering with the life of another’ is to tell a very different story. Here, ‘non-aggression’ means not doing anything that would harm another or disallow their free choice. Specifically, it means not interfering with other’s right to sustain and uphold their life.
Once understood that the primary issue is life itself, not trespass, then life becomes the vital criterion. Non aggression now takes second place.
Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life. —Ayn Rand
Right to Life Principle
So the ‘right to life principle,’ is established as precedent. Proper context also attaches to Gamble’s phrase, ‘Liberty Perspective.’ Further, and very importantly, the ‘libertarian’ viewpoint comes into question. Does it support and uphold the life of each living human being? Does it confirm the unalienable right of each of us to our own lives? Or do libertarians defend life merely as a condition for the society to flourish? Is the collective supreme? Have these folks begun to understand that liberty is collective, not (individual) freedom, and so grasped the vital importance of unalienable rights in this context?
The Right to Life Principle is foremost above all.
Far from criticising the libertarian view, these questions are for us all. Countless authors today speak about our conscious awakening, but to what exactly? Are we awakening to a new future, a new reality as some express, and if so, what form will it assume specifically? Unless and until it revokes past errors that have allowed today’s authoritarian structures to thrive, they will surely repeat. Nothing will change while its cause remains. Doing the same over and over and expecting a different result is called insanity. If indeed we are waking to past psychoses, then where exactly are the ‘founding fathers’ of this ‘new paradigm’? Who describes that the ‘right to life principle’ is foremost above all? Unless and until established that we each have the unalienable right to our life, to the exclusion of all who would violate that right, then the (supposed) power of society to crush our right to life remains. That is wide-scale aggression of life; outright violation of the Right to Life Principle.
Lawlessness violates the Right to Life Principle
Why do so many people tenaciously cling to authoritarian rule? It’s because they erroneously believe that ‘rules’ prevent violence. Statute laws that deny free choice represent a violent aggression. Forced compliance with statute law is always violence of a kind.
Free choice to trespass ‘natural law’ and violate another’s life, is an act confessing lawlessness. No statute law can prevent that occurrence. It can only punish. The Right to Life Principle is the only thing that can establish wrongdoing, morally arrest it and remediate victims when necessary. That’s because every perpetrator’s decision to violate the ‘Right to Life Principle’ confesses lawlessness in that measure.
‘One who refuses to undo his transgression and instead willfully and knowingly retains something that belongs to his victim and seeks to ‘flee from justice’ thereby announces that he wants to be outside the law. He announces that he does not want to be part of the world of human persons but wants to be a criminal, an indiscriminating person who refuses to recognize the separate and independent existence of his victim. He maintains a situation in which it is impossible for the victim (or one of his lawful successors) to have and enjoy what is rightly his without doing violence to the criminal. Consequently, the victims (or their lawful successors) do not commit an injustice when they use violence and force against a criminal to the extent that is necessary to restore respect for law.’ —Frank van Dun, Philosopher of Law.
This is the principle of natural justice, as discussed in ‘Law from Within.’ Follow this train of thought and a voluntary society is eminently feasible. As Gamble describes, ’independent dispute resolution organizations, security organizations and insurance companies would have to compete for reputations of trustworthiness, efficiency and non-violation. Violators would be prosecuted and need to make restitution to the victims, not a government.’
That last sentence sums the right to life principle very succinctly. In such society, a ‘Commission of Justice’ (CoJ),’ or equal, would replace the government. Commissioned’ by the people, it would purposefully ensure the right to life principle, wherein ‘justice’ preserves for every man, woman and child in the jurisdiction or locality of their abode.
Back to Blog Index