Violence Versus Aggression

If you’re familiar with some of the basic ideas of Libertarianism chances are high you’ll at least recognize something called the non-aggression principle. It seems simple at face value. Don’t go looking for a fight. Pressing a little deeper into the philosophy some claim it means committing no action which would harm others. In that regard aggression is confused with violence. Were it the same, it would create an internal contradiction; for many libertarians one of the core liberties is the right to be armed. If we’re armed, there’s an implication of threat, a promise of violence, based on certain conditions. In totality it would seem that this violates the precept of the NAP altogether. I argue that its viewed the wrong way- that violence and aggression are mutually exclusive concepts. In an era where aggression is openly being used as the mask on civilian disarmament has been removed, its important to understand the difference.

We have to define interpersonal violence as the intentional use of physical force against another person. Violence is not a random act. We must form an intent and a recognition that in that moment, such force is justified. Recognizing this definition, being armed becomes an implicit, and in some ways explicit, promise of violence.

I am armed, with the explicit implication of violence should you take any action of unjustified aggression against me.

Most are familiar with the right to be armed, while wholly unfamiliar with the duty assigned to that right. The preservation of such right is predicated upon first being armed then proficiency at arms, followed by the assurance of violence should any other right be taken. Your duties accompanying the right of being armed is the capacity for all three of those qualifiers. And that violence must be both quick and decisive; violence has no other legitimate purpose aside from the preservation of one’s liberty.

Aggression is separate concept wholly independent from violence. While aggression usually accompanies violence, in most contexts aggression is a posture and almost always precedes a violent act. It is a reaction. Aggression can be understood as weakness feigning strength. The raising of one’s voice, the beratement of the other, the unnecessary posing with one’s weapons for no purpose other than vanity; these are forms of aggression which precede violence. Each are forms of posturing. Posturing is much akin to a growling dog. The truly menacing dog won’t growl, he’ll just bite. He needs no confirmation of his own power, nor does he need any other justification than his prey is infringing on his territory. The small dog on the other hand will growl and snarl in an attempt to intimidate, inherently ceding their inferiority. Violence is thus natural when threatened, and among the prepared, aggression is unneeded.

So to say that one is armed nonviolent is an absurdity. The fact that I am armed implicates violence. It is a promise of violence, both quick and decisive in its nature. There should be no posturing, no prostrating with one’s weapons of an unnecessary goal. Rather, the presence of weapons and thus violence must serve an end. For me at least, that end is both a recognition of my rights through assured duties as well as training others to do the same. To build those skills and to foster that confidence in others. Violence is both necessary and a natural force; aggression is not. I am both armed and violent, trained to be violent, and train others in exercising that collective violence. That violence is quick and decisive, ending the fight as rapidly as it began.

Collective Violence. Individually, interpersonal violence exists as a resolution. However what of the concept of violence when extended to whole categories of people? When I am told “Hell Yes we are going to take your AR-15!” I consider this aggression with an implication of violence. Robert Francis O’Rourke, a product of a life of great privilege, acts through aggression. The man couldn’t disarm a child much less a trained adult, but he’ll send someone else to- make no mistake of that fact. But what serves as a deterrent to such aggression? Violence as a collective.

So with those two concepts better defined, can violence exist within the parameters of libertarianism? Absolutely. I argue that the core concept of one’s liberty is preserved through the promise of violence, that the proficiency and skill at such violence in all forms is a vital one. Aggression being an independent concept from violence, it is wholly possible to be non aggressive while being entirely violent. The difference is that violence must serve an end goal while being entirely justified. Amid those calls for civilian disarmament through force, there’s no better deterrent than building that proficiency at all levels, be it individual to collective violence.

Spread the love
                
By Published On: October 29, 2019Categories: NC Scout, Philosophy9 Comments on Violence Versus Aggression

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: admin

9 Comments

  1. Anonymous October 29, 2019 at 13:59

    5

  2. Bill October 29, 2019 at 14:29

    Well said and why it is so important to know where they live…

  3. Gryphon October 29, 2019 at 15:05

    The Strangest part of the whole “We’ll Take Your Guns” meme is that every single one of these communists actually BELIEVE that if they just ‘Pass the right Laws’ that everyone (except them) will OBEY and turn in their Guns. I cannot figure out if they are Stupid, Deluded, or Stoned.
    Maybe all three. If you want to have Fun with the next commie that you encounter, ask them if they Know what the Ratio of Armed Citizens to Police/Military overall Is. Then ask how many of those “Law Enforcement Officers” (and Soldiers) are going to ‘show up for work’ after the first few Hundred (or Thousands) of them have been Killed.

    Well, Buy more Ammo….

  4. Matt in Oklahoma October 29, 2019 at 18:22

    The Bumpfires was a litmus test that owners and the 2A crowd failed miserably.
    Much information was put out on “how to properly turn them in” by many pro 2A. Then the “they will return them when we win the lawsuit” came.
    What few are left are in hiding.
    Does any of that sound like anything “they” need to worry about? Nope
    Did any of that lead to “their” attitudes and bravado in coming forward with their plans? Yup

    Silencers went from becoming mainstream to not even sure they are going to get to stay in business because of POTUS who’s supposed to be on our side but certainly isn’t. Again this is empowering the left if we can’t even get the right onboard.

    BTW I’ve seen plenty of folks and “professionals” beaten, killed and even disarmed by failing to encounter then control violence by becoming the violent.

    Having a gun isn’t enough.

    Beto is exercising his first with about the same power and effect in stating he’s gonna take our guns as I have in stating I’m getting some tonight.

    • NC Scout October 29, 2019 at 19:18

      Couldn’t agree more. Beto simply telegraphed their intent and that’s why the marxists are ill with him. His role was drumming up the Austin-ites and illegals to turn TX blue. He shot the chance at the centrists in the foot.

      As for cans, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

  5. Historian October 29, 2019 at 18:31

    NCS- I could not agree more- see my post “The Morality of Violence”

    https://libertyhollow.weebly.com/home/the-morality-of-violence

    • NC Scout October 29, 2019 at 19:15

      Do you mind if we run that?

  6. Ben Leucking October 29, 2019 at 21:01

    If Beto, or any federal lackey, comes to my door to take my lawfully possessed and Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms that is aggression. I will respond with violence. That, too, is a guarantee. End of discussion.

  7. anonymous October 30, 2019 at 06:26

    I think this is pure posturing. No law enforcement officer is going to put their lives on the line intending into taking property by force from law abiding citizens and not expect retaliation at any time – any place. LEOs would constantly be looking over their shoulder.

    They would (if able) enact the ban of future sales and prevent the open carry, forcing owners to be ‘self arrested’, no longer able to go out in public and practice using them.. And they will also stop future legal sales of magazines. All will in effect become contraband. Automatic confiscation when found – you knew the law citizen, consider yourself considerably lucky we don’t press charges. That, I see coming.

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love