Non-Aggression Principle کیا ہے؟

NAP) Non-Aggression Principle) یا "غیر جارحیت اصول" بنیادی libertarian خیال ہے ۔ یہ کہتا ہے کہ ـــ کسی کے خلاف جارحیت یا زور زبردستی کا آغاز نہ کریں ـــ نہ ذاتی طور پر اور نہ ہی سیاسی طور پر ۔

Murray Rothbard کا کہنا ہے:

"لبرٹیریئن عقیدہ ایک مرکزی مسلّمہ اصول پر قائم ہے: کہ کوئی بھی شخس یا لوگوں کا گروہ کسی دوسرے کی ذات یا ملکیت کے خلاف جارحیت نہ کرے۔ اس کو "غیر جارحیت اصول" کہا جاسکتا ہے۔ "جارحیت" کی تعریف کسی دوسرے شخص کی ذات یا ملکیت کے خلاف جسمانی تشدد کے استعمال یا اس کی دھمکی کے طور پر کی گئی ہے۔ جارحیت لہذا حملے کا مترادف ہے ۔" (1)

NAP کے مطابق ، تشدد صرف اپنے یا دوسروں کے دفاع میں استعمال ہوسکتا ہے:

".... تشدد صرف اس شخص کے خلاف ہی استعمال کیا جاسکتا ہے جو اس طرح کے   تشدد کا ارتکاب کرے ، یعنی کہ صرف دوسرے کے جارحانہ تشدد کے خلاف دفاعی طور پر ۔ مختصر یہ کہ ایک غیر جارحانا شخس کے خلاف کوئی تشدد استعمال نہیں کیا جاسکتا ۔ یہ ہے وہ بنیادی اصول کہ جس کے ذریعے لبرٹیریئن نظریہ کے پورے ذخیرے کو استنباط کیا جاسکتا ہے ۔" (2)

غیر جارحیت کا اصول property rights سے نکلتا ہے ۔ Stephen Kinsella کہتے ہیں:

"غیر جارحیت کا اصول پراپرٹی (ملکیت) کے حقوق پر منحصر ہے ، کیونکہ جارحیت کیا ہے اس کا انحصار اس بات پر ہوتا ہے کہ ہمارے (پراپرٹی کے) حقوق کیا ہیں ۔ اگر آپ نے مجھے مارا تو یہ جارحیت ہے کیونکہ میرے جسم میں میرا property right ہے ۔ اگر میں آپ سے آپ کا سیب لیتا ہوں تو یہ غاصبانا اقدام ـــ جارحیت ـــ ہے ، صرف اس وجہ سے کہ آپ سیب کے مالک ہیں ۔ کوئی بھی کسی victim کو متعلقہ property right کی قطعی تفویض کیے بغیر کسی جارحانہ فعل (کے ارتکاب) کی نشاندہی نہیں کر سکتا ۔" (3)

اس کا مطلب ہے:

- ہر فرد کو اپنی مرضی کے مطابق زندگی گزارنے دیں ، بشرط یہ کہ وہ دوسروں کو بھی اس کی اجازت دے ۔

- دفاعی مقاصد کے علاوہ زور زبردستی / تشدّد کا کوی استعمال نہ کریں ۔

- جارحیت کا victim وہی ہے جس کے property rights کی خلاف ورزی ہوی ہے ۔ اور جہاں کوی victim نہیں وہاں کسی جرم کا ارتکاب نہیں ہوا ۔

لبرٹیرئنز ایک ایسی دنیا چاہتے ہیں جہاں زور زبردستی صرف دفاع کے لئے استعمال کی جائے - جارحیت بالکل بھی نہ ہو !

اگر آپ غیر جارحیت اصول پسند کرتے ہیں تو براہ کرم اس پیج کو دوسروں کے ساتھ بھی شیئر کریں!

References:

1. Rothbard, “For A New Liberty” 
2. Rothbard, “War, Peace, and the State” (1963)
3. Kinsella, “What Libertarianism Is”

What is the Non-Aggression Principle?

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is THE core libertarian idea that says — Don’t aggress or initiate force against anyone, personally or politically.

Murray Rothbard states:

“The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion” (1)

According to the NAP, violence can only be used in defense of oneself and/or others:

".... 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." (2)

The Non-Aggression Principle originates from property rights. Stephen Kinsella states:

“The nonaggression principle is ... dependent on property rights, since what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are. If you hit me, it is aggression because I have a property right in my body. If I take from you the apple you possess, this is trespass — aggression — only because you own the apple. One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim.” (3)

What it all means:

• Let each individual live as he/she wills, provided he/she permits the same to others.
• Do not use force except for defensive purposes.
• The victim of aggression is the person whose property rights are violated. And where there is no victim, there is no crime.

Libertarians want a world where force is used only defensively — no aggression!

References:

1. Rothbard, “For A New Liberty” 
2. Rothbard, “War, Peace, and the State” (1963)
3. Kinsella, “What Libertarianism Is”

Herd mentality: A Psychological Tactic in Politics

Excerpted from:
Against the State: An Interview with Lew Rockwell

By John W. Whitehead

The Rutherford Institute

September 25, 2014

QUESTION: Government is theater. Would you agree?

LEW ROCKWELL: Yeah, a bloody theater, a terrible theater, but it is a theater, and they know it. They know this is how to appease the people.

QUESTION: Two psychologists have studied the use of words by politicians in recent years. The most used word now by politicians in America is the word “we.” The use of this word actually gets people to form into a group where essentially they stop thinking. That is connected to the theater concept of controlling people, and I guarantee you that the government hires behaviorists and psychologists, and they study how to manipulate people. What do you think about that?

LEW ROCKWELL: I remember one of the critics of the Nazis saying that it is an indication of totalitarianism when politicians refer to “our children.” They are not your children. They are God’s children, and they are the parents’ children. They are not the government’s children, but the government, of course, feels they are and they want to shape them. They want to mold them and they want parents to have less and less to do with it. They want them in the public schools from 6 to 6, eating all their meals there and that sort of thing. You know they are not that kind of villain, but they are, in fact, villains. Even if they seem like nice, decent people, they are actually not.

I was once in politics myself before going straight, and I can tell you they are not good people. I encountered only one man whom I thought was thoroughly good, and I had the honor of working for him eventually, and that was Ron Paul, and also the only person in politics I have ever encountered who did not have the lust to rule, the lust to dominate. Ron Paul doesn’t have that, so he was a very odd bird in politics. For him, politics was an educational mission, but most of them want to dominate. Again, most of us are not interested in running the next door neighbor’s family. We don’t want to run the next town. We don’t want to run the next country. We have enough to do with our own families, mowing our lawn, doing our job, earning enough money, and so forth, that is what we want to do. But there are people who want to run the family next door. They want to run the next town. They want to run the world.

QUESTION: So they become government officials.

LEW ROCKWELL: They go into politics.

Freedom: Because It Works or Because It’s Right? | Robert Higgs

Robert Higgs

December 27, 2012

Libertarians divide into two broad classes: those who espouse a free society because it gives better results than an unfree society, and those who espouse a free society because they believe that it is wrong to deny or suppress a person’s right to be free (unless, of course, that person is suppressing the equal right of others to be free). “Consequentialists versus deontologists” is the oft-encountered labeling of this difference. It is unfortunate that so much energy has been devoted to infighting between these two groups.

Free Trade is Freedom | Robert Higgs

The case for free international trade is simply the case for freedom in general. Those who claim that conditions can be improved by restrictions, taxes, subsidies, and bans of international buying and selling are saying either that they know better than every other person what transactions will provide a net benefit to that person or that they have a right to override the buying and selling choices that all other individuals regard as in their best interest. In short, trade restrictionists of all stripes, including so-called protectionists, rest their case on either proposterous claims about what they know or outrageous presumptions of a right to pester and punish peaceful people for the sake of particular special interests who seek to pick their fellows' pockets.

- Robert Higgs