The false god of the NAP.

I truly wish the Non-Aggression Principle had never been brought forth. For those unaware of this concept, it is the simple thought that no human being has the inherent right to initiate the use of force against another human being. Sounds like a noble truth we can all agree on. Why would I be opposed to such a thing? Well, I'm not opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the factioning of the anarchist philosophy that has resulted from the birth of the NAP.

A growing number of people in the anarchist community have taken the NAP as the fundamental tenet of anarchy. It is not. While these folks, heretofore referred to as “NAP-centrists”, cling to the NAP like rabid ferrets they seem to be ignoring the thought that has been the fundamental tenet since day one; no human being has the inherent right to control the life of another human being.

To many this may seem like splitting hairs. The NAP-centrists will certainly tell you that physical force is the only way to control people. But the difference between not controlling people and merely not using physical force against people is a huge philosophical leap.

Let's start with the basic assertion of the NAP-centrists that physical force is the only way to control people. They claim this makes the NAP synonymous with a ban on control since it is a ban on the only method that can be considered control. They discard proven techniques of behavioral control such as propaganda or shame by saying that such tactics do not constitute the use of force. They claim these methods always allow the victim the choice to opt out. The entire NAP-centric philosophy rests on two premises; First, that physical force removes the victim's ability to disobey. Second, that psychological coercion always allows the victim to disobey. Both premises are entirely wrong.

First of all, physical force does not remove your options. If an aggressor holds a gun to your head and demands you write a check to him the laws of physics do not require your hand to start writing. You can simply refuse to comply. You have that choice. Unless somebody plants a remote control in your brain so they can take over your body when they feel the need, you always have the option to refuse a demand. And history is full of accounts of people who have suffered unimaginable torture and death rather than comply with demands made of them. One need only look at the long list of people burned at the stake for refusing to renounce their heresy in order to realize that physical force does not eliminate the ability to choose.

But let's look at the second premise. NAP-centrists universally believe psychological coercion always leaves you free to choose a different option than demanded. Once again, history serves to debunk this notion.

Just look at everybody's favorite historical figure, Adolf Hitler. Do you think he whipped eighty-million Germans into a genocidal frenzy by waving guns at them? Look at the posters from Nazi Germany. You won't find a single one that says “Obey or Die”. Hitler rose from nobody to most reviled man in history in just twelve years. He won the adoration and support of over eighty-million people. He conquered almost all of Europe. And he did it all with psychological coercion. It's called propaganda. And it works better than any firearm ever invented.

Any anarchist who has ever debated with a statist should be all too aware of how effective this brainwashing can be. Not only do statists refuse to make the choice to oppose government, they aren't even aware the choice exists. How many times have you heard, “We'd be lost without government to provide....”? Fill in your own blank to finish that sentence. These people are convinced government is essential to human life. So they remain obedient. They don't question, they don't rebel. Because they have been programmed to believe this is the way things have to be. They are controlled, not by the gun, but by the pen.

So we can see that physical force does not prevent disobedience any more effectively than psychological coercion. This eliminates both premises of the NAP-centric philosophy. Remember, that philosophy is based on the idea that physical force is the only way to coerce people since psychological force always leaves the option to disobey. Since physical force also leaves the option for disobedience it cannot, under the same logic, be considered more coercive than psychological force. At the same time, psychological force quite often eliminates the option of disobedience by simply convincing people there is no such option. Contrary to what the NAP-centrists claim there is strong historical evidence to suggest that psychological coercion is far more effective than physical.

But what's the point of all this? Primarily to inject some logical consistency back into the movement. I've been noticing the factioning for some time. I chalked it up to being some sort of fad making the rounds of the forums. But then I discovered that at least one of the luminaries in the field of anarchist thinking was a staunch proponent of this school of thought. That worries me. Anybody who has the ability to publish books should really put more than a little thought into what he prints. It's to the point now where NAP-centrists literally believe you can do anything you want to people so long as you don't use physical force. To be as blunt as I can, that is not anarchy.

The NAP is merely a corollary of the anarchist philosophy, not the totality of it. If you set out to control the behavior of another human being by any means you are not an anarchist. Anarchists, above all others, are supposed to believe the Golden Rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or “live and let live”. Those two rules are much closer to the anarchic ideal than the NAP. Yet more and more anarchists are moving away from that ideal into a world where it's perfectly acceptable to libel, slander, even blackmail people. The logical contortions they use to justify this are impressive.

Which brings me to the crux of this piece. All the reasoning above to refute the NAP-centric philosophy was just to lay the groundwork for the logical brutality I am about to visit upon those who believe it is acceptable under anarchic “law” to destroy a person's reputation, take their livelihood, or just plain rob them as long as you don't use physical force. Simply showing that psychological coercion is as effective and powerful as physical coercion should have been sufficient to eliminate these practices from the anarchist's toybox. But just to make sure, I am going to destroy them with their own weapons.

I'll begin with libel and slander, two forms of defamation. The NAP-centrist view on this issue is that these are attacks on a person's reputation. They continue by asserting that a person's reputation is nothing more than the thoughts others have about that person. They then claim that since you cannot own a person's thoughts, you cannot claim ownership of your reputation. Since your reputation is not your property, attacking it is not a violation of your property rights.

I have to admit, this gave me fits for the longest time. Yes, your reputation is just the thoughts others have about you. And, no, you can't claim ownership of someone else's thoughts. But, defamation has a direct impact on a person's life. It is an attempt to control them, or at least to punish them. As such, it has no place in a world where controlling people or punishing them for non-criminal activity is strictly prohibited. I tried all manner of chains of logic searching for the way to remove any semblance of legitimacy from the idea of defamation. As usual, it was the simplest answer that did the trick.

Forget all the debate over whether or not a reputation is property that can be protected. Forget the debate about whether or not it's acceptable to deprive somebody of something they have yet to receive. The NAP-centric premise that supports the legitimacy of defamation is also the logic that destroys it. My reputation is just the thoughts of others, so I cannot own it. The NAP-centrists are forgetting that they also do not own the thoughts of others. As such, they have no right to tamper with those thoughts by defaming me. If a person changes their opinion about me as a result of your libelous action you have essentially vandalized their thoughts, their property. By their own admission, NAP-centrists do not have the right to do this. So even if their entire philosophy is correct they are still prohibited from defaming people.

Defamation was the easy part. At least in hindsight it was easy. But people will still argue in support of blackmail because they call it a voluntary exchange. I want anybody who believes that to watch the Youtube video of Harry Reid explaining how the US tax system is voluntary. It's precisely the same logic used to claim blackmail is voluntary. And, no, it doesn't make any more sense when he says it than when some NAP-centrist says it.

The claim is that the blackmailer is selling the “service” of his silence to the victim. Yes, I'm serious. That's what they say. And the guy who started all this is a college professor. Even on the face of it this claim is utter nonsense. A voluntary exchange is one which both parties are seeking. A grocery store puts out its wares signaling that they are seeking to sell. I walk into the store signaling that I am looking to buy. That is voluntary. If the store and I come to an agreement about what I want to buy and what I am willing to pay for it, then an exchange is made. If the store and I do not come to an agreement, then no exchange is made and we part ways no worse off than we were before.

Pay particular attention to the last sentence of the previous paragraph. In a voluntary exchange there are no consequences for not making the trade. When you give one party the right to set consequences for the other party for refusing to trade then the trade is no longer voluntary. That point is not even remotely debatable. You haven't given the victim a choice to trade or not trade. You have given them a choice of how much the exchange will cost them. Either they pay the price for your silence or they pay whatever it will cost in damages for the information you release.

Put the method of blackmail in a different context to see if it sounds voluntary. A man knocks on your door and offers to sell you a pair of socks for $20. You weren't in the market for socks. You didn't invite this man over to display his wares. Not to mention that $20 is pretty high for a pair of socks. Just as you are about to refuse the offer the man tells you if you don't buy his socks at his price he will have your employer dock your pay for the next three months. Does this still sound like a voluntary, reasonable exchange? It is precisely the same formula as blackmail. No, blackmail is not acceptable under anarchy. And, no, I do not care who claims it is, how many acronyms follow his name, or how many books he has written. The logic is clear. Blackmail is psychological coercion. Psychological coercion is a method of controlling a person's behavior. Controlling a person's behavior is prohibited under the anarchic philosophy. It really is that simple.

NAP-centrists also contend that blackmail is acceptable because you are only depriving a person of something they do not have yet, future income. They claim, and I vehemently oppose the idea, that people do not have the right to future income, only money they have right now. There are wicked ramifications to that line of thought. In anarchy, there are no positive rights. So using the lack of one as justification for taking something creates a serious problem. For example, there is no right to life. So using the NAP-centrist logic that you can take whatever people do not have a right to demand, murder is just fine.

But there is the right to be free from control. And all of the psychologically coercive games NAP-centrists support violate that right.

I truly hope my meager command of the English language has been sufficient to convey the logic in my head. Anarchy is not merely freedom from violence. It is freedom from control. Anything you do to control another person is un-anarchic. Anything. There is no way to justify such behavior within the confines of the philosophy of anarchy. The philosophy of anarchy explicitly prohibits one human from governing, ie controlling, another human being. And that is why I am angry with the NAP. It has caused people to lose sight of the fundamental philosophy. Do not fall into the NAP-centric trap. Because I promise if you show up at my door looking to blackmail me with some photos of me and a donkey, I will reward your tyranny with lead.