Like the Bonobo chimps of the Republic of Congo, many human beings around the world have accepted and adopted for their own lifestyles what they call the Non-Aggression Axiom for their individual code but, just as importantly, for their social code, how they treat others. Bonobo chimps, unlike the common chimpanzee, lives in total peace, harmony and prosperity within both their individual and various other troops. They do not fight or kill one another, like the common Chimp which kills other Chimpanzees both within their own and in other troops.
Individuals around the world, almost with question, except for some actions the majority of the world generally finds barbaric, such as Muslims legally beating their wives for infidelity, are no longer culturally accepted; those actions which aggress against, threaten or use force, coercion or fraud to harm others. It is no longer lawful to legally kill, injure, threaten, coerce, steal or use fraud against one another. We do not any longer socially tolerate the barbaric social rituals of slavery, sacrifice, torture or murder as such societies as the Mayans, Romans, and even like many cultures around the world did for slavery up until 150+/- years ago. We have made progress to some respect. Like the Bonobo chimp has done in some ways, but we have not yet matched their obvious intelligence within our own societies because we have not adopted the non-aggression axiom for our social lives. We still allow killing, torture, destruction of property and theft by nation states, under the auspices of many social policies which all purport to be for the common good.
An axiom according to Wikipedia is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Also according to Wikipedia, the non-aggression axiom, (NAA) and other similar names is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAA and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is, depends on what a person’s rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAA, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Think of the NAA or whatever you want to call it, as an agreement between rational human beings, not to harm one another. Pretty simple, not hard to understand and as noted in Wikipedia, rights and property go hand in hand with the Axiom. It’s pretty much what Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were envisioning and why the Citizens didn’t ratify the Constitution, until the Bill of Rights was added. A valiant effort but it surely has not restrained the powers of the nation state, as intended. I think Jefferson, brilliantly saw one of the major if not the most important flaw within the Constitution. That there were no direct impediments on the Judiciary by the Citizens, to the exclusion of the elected representatives. The judiciary started, right away, rubber stamping legislation that abrogated the Constitution’s intent and the Citizens have never been able to negate bad decisions and often sabotage the Citizens challenges, because of this. There is a solution but that is another issue for another day.
By not adopting the non-aggression axiom on a social level, we continue to encourage predator nation states through political power to build excessive levels of militaristic imperialism that murder, rape, steal, torture, decimate and destroy the lives and property of people, both within their respective societies but also others around the world in the guise of national security, when the evidence shows us that this is both a fraudulent justification that is often times premeditated. Lying to get us to get us in the Iraq war is one of the most obvious but every single war since the war of 1812, has been premeditated and the evidence is both substantive and voluminous.
Look what has happened to the various societies around the world that most greatly do not support this axiom and thus support the legalization of force and coercion. In the US, after just 235 years, it has literally impoverished one third (1/3) of the Citizens of our society, resulting in each generation now becoming more and more impoverished as legalization of force and coercion become more extensive. We have in general, increasing crime rates, incarcerations, corruption and political dissention/civil conflict over the last 50 years. We have diminished levels of educations, medical care and an overall social welfare. We have greater levels of resultant usurpations of individual rights from the abrogation of our Constitution, which was supposed to be, in many ways, an agreed upon system based on the non-aggression axiom.
Government is generally comprised of individuals who have such unjust, poor or preposterous social ideas that they must use or legalize force and coercion of taxation under fallacious and/or fraudulent contrived rationale to get others to go along and pay for them. If they do not use force and erroneous rationale, they surely would not be able to get others to contribute voluntarily. This is what is called in economics, the “misallocations of resources” which contributes historically to the eventual bankruptcy of most societies. When people have good ideas, there is generally enough people who will voluntarily contribute to these ventures, both of the commercial and philanthropic variety. There is no perfect system, but voluntary cooperation is surely a preference over trying to force and coerce others to participate in social situations. The legalization of force has not worked well for human beings or the common chimpanzee.
Political motive should always be rebuked, because ultimately, despite the embellished pleas of importance, someone, most often the wealthy, are trying to benefit at the expense of everybody else. The benefits may be both direct as a government or indirect, coming in the form of something the wealthy should be paying for, but they using deception, if necessary to try to get everyone else to pay for it. They always attempt to deceive the majority into believing it is their social duty and that it will not get done otherwise. As an example, to believe that the wealthy would not fervently protect their great amounts of wealth and property against a foreign attack, with what ever funds and means necessary to defend it and themselves on a voluntary basis, surely is not consider how much materialism means to these type people. Those who have the greatest amounts of wealth have the greatest amounts to lose and thus will pay if necessary to defend it.
It is the same illogical thought that the oil, gasoline, tire and auto companies would not insure that we have good roads, so that they would be able to sell the $billions of good and services they do, such as gasoline, tires and automobiles. Who better to help build and pay for the roads than the oil companies that provide the asphalt for building the road material.
The poorer half of society has been lied to and mislead that they, with little or no wealth and property are morally and socially obligated to pay for such things they can not afford nor have any realistic say as to there deployment. It ends up being corporate welfare for those that can afford, it to the detriment of those that cannot afford it. Taxation thus is in reality legalized theft, as the wealthy always control and dominate the rule of law and the political system that controls it within the nation state. Money becomes the predominant determinant, rather than right and wrong or justice and equality under the law.
The non-aggression Axiom promotes the voluntary association of human beings, rather than the force and coercive nature of taxation, for supporting social policies.
Even some within the Zionist movement, who long supported the Jewish Nation State are starting to adopt the non-aggression axiom, as they are currently experiencing the consequences of the imperialistic nature and conflict the nation state produces. It’s systemic use of force and coercion through various taxing methods to mold their social policies of warfare, constant military aggression against their neighbor and cronyistic graft. The Zionists have become the antagonistic terrorists in the name of protecting against terrorism through the failed nation state. They have gone from being terrorized to becoming the terrorists.
Just like the common chimpanzee, unlike the bonobo, who has yet to fully adopt the non-aggression axiom and thus attack and kill members of neighboring troop and even harm and kill members of their own troop, those that support embrace the use of force and coercion are experiencing the same thing. They constantly are engaged in warfare in the name of nationalism and the rule of law. Sadly as all nation states experience, it is most often the law by those who rule. The end justifies the means, except they never reach the ending peach and prosperity, because that is not the nature of the nation state.
How can an institution, the nation state, which adapts for it’s economic foundation, a system which must utilize the use of force and coercion to take property and money from those which it rightfully belongs to and turn it over to those that it does not rightfully belong to, promote a society which embraces the non-aggression axiom. We have done this on the individual basis, yet we cannot see the forest for the trees socially. We cannot see the results of three thousand years of failed nation states, as each booms and busts from first the imperialism nature to steal their neighbors, both other nations states and individuals wealth and property within their own societies, and then it’s banruptcy from the continuous misallocation of the resources the steal and redistribute.
Does this very action, not cause conflict; redistributing the wealth from those it’s rightfully belongs to, to those that it does not. Why must there be deception for it’s rationalle by the liars we call politicians, if it is such a necessarily. How can something that is socially deems wrong for the individual, be seen as necessary socially, unless one suggests that the largest most powerful entity, not matter how much justice and ethic is usurped by this group to enforce their actions, is therefore lawfully and justly correct; might makes right?
Libertarianism, some suggest is the world largest and more singularly adopted political ideology embraced by individuals throughout the world. There are libertarian political parties in almost every country in the world making it perhaps the world largest single political party. In contrast, the various statists, socialists, communists and fascists ideologies under the guise of many names all fail to socially embrace the non-aggression axiom and the results are obvious to all but the apathetic an dignornat. Are we as a race really less intelligent than the Bonobo Chimp? They have figured out how to be peaceful and prosperous coexist as they have somehow adopted the non-aggression axiom. Some suggest they are the most intelligent primates on the planet. Genetic studies suggest that there is a sort of peace chromosome that Bonobos have and common Chimps do not. Thankfully we are believed to have this chromosome.