Ngor Makuey, 20, found guilty of first-degree murder. Makuey broke into the home of Rupert and Harriet Anderson and attacked the couple, killing Rupert with a metal spatula.
|
I recently got a note from a good friend whom I attend church with. He's been a 'Liberty Republican' for some years, now; and we occasionally discuss the political trends of our state & nation. He wanted to hear my 'take' on the popular view of some Libertarians advocating 'open borders' and a free flow of anonymous migrants throughout the nations. Here's how the short Q&A went...
Question: "I just read about a 20 year old Ethiopian refugee in Des Moines who was just found guilty of murdering a 97 year old WW2 veteran. It appears totally unprovoked. The Muslim killer seems to be only motivated by a sense of retribution for 'American aggression' in the middle east."
He asked; "Why is it these open borders supporters don't see this happening?" |
My Response:
I think the whole "non aggression" mindset seems so romantic to many of them and they conclude that evil and aggression will just go away if "we" just set a good example. The Non Aggression Principle is a very solid and consistent teaching of a Judeo Christian worldview, as well as a political principle advocated by Mahatma Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King jr.. It advocates a respect for other's lives, freedom, & property. But we should never make the foolish presumption that if we adhere to the principle, then all the world will do the same.
The classic faiths of the world have all been bastardized at times by some tyrants, to exploit a popular faith in their own lust for power & control. Right now we see a sect of Islam doing this, but there are also very dangerous Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Christians; who have and would again seek to dominate others. They will twist portions of their holy texts, to justify their evil designs.
I think the whole "non aggression" mindset seems so romantic to many of them and they conclude that evil and aggression will just go away if "we" just set a good example. The Non Aggression Principle is a very solid and consistent teaching of a Judeo Christian worldview, as well as a political principle advocated by Mahatma Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King jr.. It advocates a respect for other's lives, freedom, & property. But we should never make the foolish presumption that if we adhere to the principle, then all the world will do the same.
The classic faiths of the world have all been bastardized at times by some tyrants, to exploit a popular faith in their own lust for power & control. Right now we see a sect of Islam doing this, but there are also very dangerous Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Christians; who have and would again seek to dominate others. They will twist portions of their holy texts, to justify their evil designs.
In Dinesh D'Souza's documentary, "America"; he points out that all of human history demonstrates that the world has been perpetually dominated by the rule of conquest. The mightier and more oppressive have always occupied the territory they desired.
But this is perhaps where some folks' Libertarian philosophy transcends into a religious creed. The adherents of Libertarian Non-Aggression feel they need to be true to non-aggression as a sort of "turn the other cheek" act of faith and obedience. But Judeo Christian doctrines have always taught national vigilance as well; to defend and protect, knowing that evil will always exist in this world.
I think we've seen the zenith of US domination. The pendulum may be swinging back and it may take some painful losses in order to shake the spiritual Libertarians into reality. But it may also lead to a much more dire consequence for most or all of our republic.
Many thoughtful Libertarians do believe that a nation should keep sentries at the borders and fully monitor who and what is coming in.
But this is perhaps where some folks' Libertarian philosophy transcends into a religious creed. The adherents of Libertarian Non-Aggression feel they need to be true to non-aggression as a sort of "turn the other cheek" act of faith and obedience. But Judeo Christian doctrines have always taught national vigilance as well; to defend and protect, knowing that evil will always exist in this world.
I think we've seen the zenith of US domination. The pendulum may be swinging back and it may take some painful losses in order to shake the spiritual Libertarians into reality. But it may also lead to a much more dire consequence for most or all of our republic.
Many thoughtful Libertarians do believe that a nation should keep sentries at the borders and fully monitor who and what is coming in.
| Year | Author | Formulation |
|---|---|---|
| 1689 | John Locke | Locke gives the following version of the NAP: "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[8] |
| 1816 | Thomas Jefferson | Jefferson describes the NAP in a letter to Francis Gilmer: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."[9] |
| 1851 | Herbert Spencer | Spencer formulates the NAP as: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."[10] |
| 1859 | John Stuart Mill | In his book On Liberty Mill states the NAP as follows: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".[11] |
| 1923 | Albert J. Nock | In the second chapter of his book, Our Enemy, the State Nock refers to an ancient formulation of the NAP by the legendary king Pausole, who stated it as two laws. The first law was "hurt no man" and the second was "then do as you please".[12] |
| 1961 | Ayn Rand | In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book The Virtue of Selfishness she formulated "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."[13][14][15] |
| 1963 | Murray Rothbard | "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." Cited from "War, Peace, and the State" (1963) which appeared in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays[16] |
