The "Non-Aggression Principle" Requires "Pacifism"
Why Anti-Pacifists are Statists

The claim is made by some libertarians that they support the "Non-Aggression Principle" (NAP) but they are "not pacifists."

This essay asks two questions:

  1. Why would someone who supports the "Non-Aggression Principle" distance themselves from "pacifism?" What motivates this pleading of "not guilty?"
  2. What is the result or effect of this pleading?

Our answer to the second question is:

What is Statism?

The word "statism" or "statist" is a derogatory term of insult. It might literally mean "worship of the State," but nobody self-describes as a "statist" or publicly endorses a philosophy of "statism." It is a word used only by "anarchists" and other enemies of The State. Some libertarians who say they are "not pacifists" may say they oppose "statism." But by opposing pacifism, they pave the way for statism, as we'll see.

This effect is unintended, of course.

When a person disses "pacifism," he is unwittingly promoting statism and government aggression. This is because opposition to pacifism is based on certain myths which play into the hands of statists.

This paper is written from a "Christian Reconstructionist" perspective, theologically speaking, and an "anarcho-capitalist" perspective, politically speaking.

The Thesis of this paper is that you are a statist if you are against "pacifism." Of course, those are "fighting words," designed to grab your attention. And most arguments I see in social media revolve around words that are being defined differently by different people (or else insulting words thrown around without any serious thought). So we should start by clarifying our terms and our Thesis.

Stating our Thesis another way, the forces of Statism propagate the myth that "pacifism" is "unbiblical" or "heretical" (theologically speaking), and "unrealistic," "impractical," and "utopian" (politically speaking). These forces equate "pacifism" with "passivism," and  a "pacifist" is denounced as someone who, rather than intervening in some way to stop the commission of violence or evil, will simply let evil have its way without attempting in any way to stop it or avoid it.

More specifically, our Thesis is that Christians who resonate with the "Non-Aggression Principle" (popular in libertarian circles) are required by their faith to be pacifists (denounced by those same libertarian circles). The reason is simple.

Non-Pacifism = Vengeance

Many secular varieties of the "Non-Aggression Principle" allow for "retaliation," and on this basis condemn "pacifism" for not allowing it. "Non-Aggression Principle" + Retaliation =  one may not initiate force, but if force is successfully initiated against you (despite your best efforts to defend yourself from such force), and even if the initiation of force has now ceased, you may retaliate against the initiator of force by initiating force of your own. Ayn Rand put it this way:

"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use." (See also, Retaliation and the NAP : Anarcho_Capitalism.)

"Retribution" is another term used. Of course, most advocates of retaliation agree that retaliatory force should be proportional to the force initiated. But this opens the door to confusion: if someone threatens me with a sword, I have the right to use an equal and opposite force against the sword: a shield.

But this is not "retaliation." It's just "self-defense," which no pacifist objects to.

For the Christian, "retaliation" is simply vengeance, and is prohibited. If someone comes at you with a sword, you may defend yourself with your shield, but if your attacker gets tired and takes a nap, you may not retaliate by hitting him unconscious with your shield while he rests.

"Retaliation" cannot simply mean "self-defense," because no pacifist I know of opposes "self-defense," unless the term is defined simply as "killing someone who attacks me." There are an infinite number of ways to defend oneself from an attack that do not require the killing of the attacker, real or prospective.

Every argument against pacifism -- even arguments by "libertarians" -- is an argument against the fundamentals of Christian ethics. (And most people who call themselves Christians are not "fundamentalists" when it comes to Christian ethics.)

Pacifism Defined

Since we are writing from the perspective of whole-Bible Christianity, not a Hindu perspective, we do not advocate the kind of "pacifism" that would prohibit you from swatting a mosquito that has landed on your arm because the mosquito could be someone's mother. We are not against eating meat.

The Biblical case for pacifism is simple

  1. "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20)
  2. "Vengeance belongs to God" (Romans 12)
  3. "Love your enemy" and "pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5)

I would sum up these three points this way:

Every argument against pacifism contradicts one of these three fundamental ethical principles, which are not qualified or retracted anywhere in Scripture.

So I ask people, "Why are you not a pacifist?" Phrased another way (reflecting the three fundamental moral axioms above), I ask:

Here is a list of objections to pacifism, and my responses:

1.