The Heart of Libertarianism

At the heart of libertarianism is an idea, a value, and I would say a virtue, called the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle holds that it is immoral, it is wrong, for one person, or a group of people, to initiate the use of force against another person. I like to say, the non-aggression principle holds that it is immoral to initiate -violence- against another person. The non-aggression principle is rooted in liberty, individualism, self-ownership, and freedom of conscience.

Libertarians believe that as an individual, you own your body, you own your life, you own the fruits of your labor, and nobody else has the right to initiate the use of force against you, nobody has the right to initiate the use violence or to make threats of violence against you, for -any- reason. The non-aggression principle applies to everyone, all individuals, and all groups of people. Maybe most importantly for a modern political analysis, the non-aggression principle applies to majorities, and it applies to governments.

So even if a group gets together in a geographic area, and the majority of that group then decides to, or votes, to initiate the use of force against another person, the non-aggression principle still applies to that group of people, or to that government. So it is just as wrong for a group of people to agree to initiate the use of force as it is for one person to choose to initiate the use of force. It is the act itself of the initiation of the use of force, in and of itself, that is morally wrong. Who initiates the use of force, how many people agree to do it, what authority they claim, their rationale, and so on, are all totally irrelevant, none of these factors changes the moral analysis of the action taken.

As an example, when applying the non-aggression principle, there is no difference between, on one hand, the FDA, which objectively, forcibly prevents a dying patient from taking an experimental medication that patient wants to take, and then on the other hand, an individual walking into a hospital room and personally using force against a dying patient in order to prevent that patient from taking the experimental medication. There is no moral difference between the FDA and the individual in this scenario. It is the act of initiating the use of force against the dying patient in order to prevent that dying patient from taking the medication that is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

There is nothing about democracy that provides a shield for immorality. An immoral act does not suddenly, magically become moral when a group of people, or the majority of people who live in a geographic area collectively agree to do it. Ultimately, the state does not have the right to take any action against someone that an individual alone doesn't have the right to take.

An idea directly related to the non-aggression principle is self-ownership. Libertarians believe that you own your body, you own your life, and just as importantly, you own the fruits of your labor.  Self-ownership means you have bodily autonomy, you have free will, you have self-determination, you have volition, you are responsible for your actions, and you own the consequences of your decisions. You own the fruits of your labor absolutely, because it is your energy and sacrifice, your blood sweat and tears, your time, and a piece of your life, that you have given to some cause in exchange for some benefit. The fruits of your labor belong to you, and you alone, just as your body belongs to you, and you alone.

In the modern economy, when you think of the fruits of your labor, you think of a paycheck, money, currency. In the modern economy, currency is a representation of your life's energy, it was given to you in exchange for your energy and your time. You give your currency to other people in exchange for their energy and time.  You spend your life, your time, devoted to some activity, objective, or goal, in order to obtain that currency.  Any individual or any group taking that currency from you is stealing your energy and your time. They are stealing your life from you.

What is the ethical difference between, on one hand, forcibly taking someone's money from them, their economic energy, the benefit they have earned from their time and their labor, and on the other hand violating their bodily autonomy directly and forcing them to do something against their will for someone else's benefit? What is the moral difference between these two things? There is no difference, they are functionally the same thing: using coercion against one individual and seizing their economic energy in order to confer a benefit upon another. Both scenarios are violations of the non-aggression principle, both repudiations of self-ownership.

Implementing the principle of self-ownership as it relates to the above example of the patient being forcibly prevented from taking a medication: the decision as to whether that patient takes the medication should belong to the patient and the patient alone. The patient is the one who bears the consequences of the cost-benefit decision. The patient faces the risks, the potential negative consequences or side-effects of taking that medication, and they have to balance that with the potential benefits, their current level of suffering, the prognosis, and so on. There are lots of factors here. This is a deeply personal, serious, consequential, potentially life and death decision that only the patient themselves has the right to make.

Libertarian principles of self-ownership and bodily autonomy clearly illustrate that for the patient, it is their body, their life, and their decision. Any infringement on this patient's decision, on their free will - especially when that patient is dealing with a life-threatening illness and the experimental medication provides hope - any use of force preventing that patient from making the decision to take that medication is a depraved, heartless, and cruel violation of the non-aggression principle.

Denying someone's self-ownership can equate to denying their right to exist.

Take the above example where the government, the FDA, forcibly denies a patient's right to take an experimental medication. That denial of self-ownership, that claim of the state, that the state will make that decision over the patient's body instead of the patient, could lead to that patient dying. Suppose the experimental medication would have worked, would have extended the patient's life or even caused a breakthrough cure. That denial of self-ownership by the state in that scenario is the but-for causation of the patient's death. In this situation, the government is denying that patient their right to exist. I cannot think of a more egregious and catastrophic violation of self-ownership.

Another visceral example of this is the military draft. With conscription, the state claims ownership of an individual and coerces them into participating in the state's war. If that individual does not want to voluntarily fight in the war, is forced to fight, and dies in that war, their right to exist has been taken from them by the state absolutely, just as their self-ownership was taken from them absolutely.

But this principle holds true in any situation where the State initiates the use of force against an individual. When the state seizes an individual's currency, or economic energy, that taxation is also an infringement upon individual self-ownership. Even something seemingly small like a sales tax, or a licensing fee, could have an impact on an individual's life. It is impossible to know what the butterfly effect might be even for these seemingly minor instances where the state is interfering with someone's self-ownership. The moral and practical solution to this is through the libertarian non-aggression principle, which is a total prohibition on any initiation of the use of force.

Another central idea related to the non-aggression principle is freedom of conscience. One individual must honor another's freedom of conscience, and the majority must also honor the individual's freedom of conscience. One of the fatal flaws of forced collectivism is that is ultimately does not allow for disagreement. A taxpayer may not opt out, their view is not respected, and the energy of their labor will inevitably be converted to state action they despise.

Suppose a nation's government decides to take some military action and we have an individual who does not support that war, for whatever reason.  Even if the overwhelming majority does support the war, the majority must respect the individual who does not want to support or participate in that war.  For the individual who doesn't want to participate, their rationale for their position, whatever that rationale is, can never invalidate their individual right to have nothing to do with the military action. That individual should have the freedom to not support the war, for any reason they see fit.  That decision must be respected completely. The fruits of that individual's labor should never be forcibly taken from them to effectuate this military action that the individual disagrees with. That is real freedom of conscience.

Freedom of conscience doesn't just apply to war. People have the right to refuse to be a part of anything government does: subsidies, corporate bailouts, public education, the criminal justice system, the welfare state, social security, the military industrial complex, the national security state, the fiat currency system, our current government dominated healthcare system, and so on. Every issue, everything the government does or could conceivably do, no person should be forced to be a part of any of it. Even if you think it is a brilliant idea, even if the overwhelming majority believes it is essential, the individual should never be coerced into participating. This is especially visceral when forcing people to fund activities they find to be destructive. Forcing people to pay for and thus enable things they find to be morally wrong is callous and cruel.

In a statist society do you really have the right to disagree with the government, or with the majority?  When the government taxes you, the message of that, the meaning of it, and the function of it, is that you are not allowed to disagree with anything the government does.  The government has zero respect for your individual conscience, your emotions, your feelings, or your free will.

I've found that when voting, many people only ask themselves whether they want the thing the politician is proposing to be done, but one must consider the nature and power of law and how that corresponds with government force. A law is not a suggestion. A law is enforced through the coercive power of the state, up to and including the threat of deadly force, and ultimately escalating to the use of deadly force.

Take property taxes for example. If someone doesn't pay what the state demands, the process will start with letters and court dates and so on, but it will escalate, and if the homeowner doesn't comply, eventually force will be used against them. Their home will be seized. The homeowner will be evicted by the government and their home will be sold to pay the outstanding tax the state demands. If the homeowner resists being evicted, the government will escalate the use of force against them. If the homeowner violently resists, deadly force will be administered by the state. This is a simple example, but this course of action, this system of escalating government force is the reality of law enforcement.

So when you're advocating for a law, you have to ask yourself, is it right to use force against someone to make them comply with this law? Do you want violence or threats of violence used against them to make them do what you want them to do? And personalizing this question is critical. The question you should ask yourself, are you personally willing to use force against another person to enforce this law? If you are not willing to use force yourself, what sense does it make to dispatch others, to dispatch the state to do it on your behalf?

The non-aggression principle is something we all accept in our personal lives. In your relationships, you don't use force against someone to make them comply with what you want them to so. That's one way to look at libertarianism, it is universalizing this idea, the non-aggression principle, that we all agree with in our personal interactions with others, it just applies it to everyone, equally, all the time.

The heart of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.  The heart of the non-aggression principle is love and respect for your fellow human being, their individuality, their bodily autonomy, their labor, their conscience, their goals, their values, and their dreams.

I want to live in a free society, and I want everyone to live in a free society, where initiations of the use of force are unacceptable and no longer part of how we treat each other, and where all associations, interactions, and exchanges between people are voluntary. The non-aggression principle must be our guiding light in political life, a beautiful idea for defining and understanding ethical human relationships. The non-aggression principle informs what the government should be, and I hope it will be the core philosophical principle of our libertarian American future of peace, freedom, prosperity, humility, respect, and kindness.

My name is Tom Schmitz, I'm the Libertarian Party candidate for United State House of Representatives in Missouri's First Congressional District, my home of St. Louis. I thank you for your open mind and I ask for your vote tomorrow.