What is the Non-Aggression Principle?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZARmbvg7aM]

– Tisha Casida

Most of us have grown up with some type of moral or ethical code that guides our decision-making.  One of these well-known mantras of good behavior is “The Golden Rule”, also known as the “ethic of reciprocity”.  I am paraphrasing here: ‘Treat others as you would like to be treated’ or ‘Don’t treat others as you would not like to be treated’.

This is a way for most people, historically, to make judgements about good and bad behavior.  As the human race, most of us enjoy or dislike similar things.  We enjoy having an ability to act freely, and we dislike being detained or made slaves.  We enjoy accumulating forms of property and wealth, and we dislike having our things taken away from us.

As a member of the so-called “Millenial” generation that is watching our country move in various directions politically, economically, and socially, it reminds me of the importance of embracing a moral and ethical code in decision-making, especially when it comes to government action and the use of our country’s resources to be a “player” on the global economic stage.

The Non-Aggression Principle is another maxim, like the Golden Rule, that projects that one should not use aggression against another human being unless it is in self-defense.  Simple enough, right?  Why would I be aggressive towards another person, unless that other person is trying to harm me?  Well, unfortunately, with the bureaucracy we face as individuals, entrepreneurs, small-business owners, farmers, producers, etc., it is easy to get caught up in the aggression and use of force by government – and this aggression towards us – may be a bad and dangerous use of force.

Let’s take the example of federal income taxes.  Income taxes, specifically at the federal level of government, are a way for the federal government to tax your labor (arguably your property), and then use this money to fund various pet projects – many times and most often not directly benefiting the person being taxed.  If someone doesn’t pay their federal income taxes, they can be fined or jailed.  The government uses force and aggression to collect these taxes in the name of “the greater good and general welfare”.  However, since around only half of Americans pay federal income taxes, this leaves a greater burden on those who are working and paying for the “general welfare” of all people (and corporations) in the United States.

Government can use force and aggression to extort money from individuals who have committed a “crime” with no victim.  Is this a good and beneficial use of aggression and force?  Using the non-aggression principle, one would come to the conclusion that if the taxpayer is not outwardly hurting others by paying taxes and fees levied in their own State instead of giving their hard-earned money to the federal government (which can then take those funds and use them for other States, for creating and perpetuating wars, and to fund a Health Care system that is generally not any more affordable or transparent than the mess we have now), that they should not be hurt for their actions.  I am not saying you shouldn’t pay taxes – I am saying, why aren’t we paying taxes to our State instead of the federal government?  Wouldn’t this be a more efficient and effective use of our money – keeping it closer to home, where there is more transparency and accountability for what is done with this money?

Have you seen uses of force and aggression by government agencies on people who have not been aggressive or forceful to the government?  If I am a soap-maker, and I want to sell my soap with eucalyptus oil and call it “Breathe Better”, is it right and just that I could be attacked by the Food and Drug Association (FDA) for making this claim?  Is it right and just that I have to follow the same rules and regulations that Pfizer has to follow in bringing a drug to market?  Is it a good use of force to have government agencies aggressing individuals, entrepreneurs, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and producers with these requirements that then stymie and crush the ability of people to be free in what they produce and what they bring to market?

I believe that there is a time and place for the use of aggression and force by the government.  However, I think that most of what the federal government is doing, through these agencies that purport to “protect” the American public, actually hurts the ability of people to be healthy, to be creative, and to be free.  This use of aggression and force by the government goes against the non-aggression principle.  If I am not hurting anyone with the tomato that I grow, the soap I make, the cookie that I bake – then why on earth would anyone try and hurt me?  Especially my government that I fund as a taxpayer and give permission to – to create our infrastructure, engage in defense, and administer a justice system.

I urge you to take a look at the ideas of the non-aggression principle, and how using this for decision-making could change the way we allow our government to use aggression and force on us, as well as on other countries.  I believe in peace, and I believe that using this as a model, we can make more sustainable decisions about how we operate as communities and States in America.

This article was published in the 2015 New Year Edition of That’s Natural! You can view and purchase a subscription at www.ThatsNatural911.com.

With All the Added Security – What Do Failures Tell Us?

One of the most haunting things coming out of the turmoil in France is the fact that despite huge amounts of “security” and investments in “intelligence”, it still continues to be impossible to prevent terror attacks.  There are lapses in how intelligence is used, and there are always ways for humans to overlook and be erroneous in their judgements and actions.

Sadly, the only way to ensure no terror on planet Earth is to kill all humankind – not a great option in my opinion.  You see, there will always be people who seek to cause fear and terror.

How do we really, actually, successfully combat terror?  First of all, I think that our federal government could get a lesson in practicing the “non-aggression principle” and stop bombing and killing innocent people in the world in the name of “security”.  Our country’s meddling in world affairs could very well be causing some anger and hatred (“blowback”) of our foreign policy.  If people have not hurt our country, then we should leave them alone.  Of course, this is a mess with our ties to various resources around the world. But we can at least discuss the theory.

All of the “security” in the world – all of the “intelligence” in the world – both which generally erode the individual and creative rights of the people who live peacefully – will never stop terror attacks.  There must be ways to have a more effective foreign policy.  There must be ways to protect individuals’ rights in our own country and around the world.

Refuse to be motivated by fear, and be secure in your sovereignty.  By standing up for yourself – you stand up for freedom in the world.

To A Peaceful, Prosperous, and Rebellious 2013

Each of us makes a difference. Each of us, even in our own little world of stocking shelves, serving food, driving trucks, delivering goods, tapping on the keyboard, and talking to friends and family – each action that we take is profound.

 

The government is made up of people – human beings – that can be changed (or manipulated for that matter). We – you and I – are the people that can make our government exist of people who cherish liberty, our natural rights, our right to protect ourselves, our right to express ourselves freely.

 

We do this by our own little interactions – in our community, in our town or city, and in our County. We can participate in State and national politics – but our real power is with our small circle of 10 or 20, who we can trust, who we can talk to, and who we can build our armies with.

 

To a very rebellious 2013 – let us rebel against the evil powers that seek to destroy, and instead – cherish, promote, and empower the creative forces that embrace peace and prosperity. Let us rebel against collective rights, like political parties, who have their own agenda. Let us rebel against the manipulative monetary system that erodes the wealth and property of all people. Let us rebel against the tyranny that seeks to destroy our light, as free and loving people.

 

Rebel with me, and let’s use the amazing power that we have – for good.

 

In Liberty,

 

Tisha

 

Are you interested in subscribing to 12-24 months of rebellious and truthful commentary from me? For just $19.84 (1 year), or, an ounce of silver (2 years), subscribe today! Email at: partydumper911@gmail.com

 

OR Mail at:

Rebellion c/o Tisha Casida

PO Box 8944

Aspen, CO 81612

Merry Christmas – Jesus as Our Libertarian Friend

There are probably few better role models than that of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter what religion or spirituality encompasses your framework and world-view, looking at Jesus Christ as a person, based off of a well-known book called The Bible, shows that he is just the type of guy that many households could use right now – as a friend, a companion, a confidant, and a freedom-fighter.

 

As people who cherish liberty and our natural rights to do things like eat the food we want, maintain control over our property (including our body), and defend and protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm – we embrace individual rights. We embrace taking responsibility for ourselves. As Michael Badnarik eloquently points out in his lectures and Constitution classes, he says “I am King” – and that each of us, as individuals are Kings. We bow to no one. We are responsible for ourselves and cherish ourselves as individuals. This is unique to most forms of governments in the world – our country is still very free.

 

In Luke 17:21, Jesus is talking about where exactly the Kingdom of God is, and says that it is nether “here” nor “there”, “because the kingdom of God is within you” (New International Version Bible, 1984). Stop looking around – God is inside of us, and we are the Kings of our lives. And, as Badnarik would say, “It is good to be King”.

 

Jesus is the kind of friend that would not cast judgment on a person – he ate and drank with thieves (thieves at that time were the tax-collectors) and prostitutes, he was nice to everyone – he loved people where they were at. Like most of us who cherish liberty, we oftentimes find ourselves preaching to others, but we respect people’s individual choices and would never use force to change the behavior of another. Love versus force – a big gap in how to encourage behavior amongst our fellow men. I opt for using love to encourage behavior – not force.

 

Religions use “sin” as a word to cast judgment and prove “wrongness”. In Greek, “sin” literally means to “miss the mark”. And oh, how so many of us do miss that mark. Morality is subjective – there will be no agreement amongst humankind about right or wrong – but we can all think of ways that we “miss the mark”. In America, that mark is remembering that we are powerful individuals, and that our natural rights must be intact for us to not be slaves.

 

Jesus turned over the tables of the “money-changers” and was a rabble-rousing truth-seeker that caused problems for “the King”. Those money-changers (like the Federal Reserve today) and thieves (like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) were called out by Jesus – for their robbery of the people. They were eroding the wealth and property of the people, and Jesus had enough of it. He did not lay down, he did not shut up, he spoke out and eventually his life was taken for it.

 

There is no better way to celebrate this holiday (again, regardless of what you believe in as “God”) than to celebrate the rabble-rouser whose birth so many celebrate. So, this Christmas, I wish to you a merry time with friends, family, pets, etc. in celebration of the birth of a man who made enemies of those who would keep us on our knees.

Is It Okay to Kill in the Name of Public Safety?

During the French Revolution, the King’s (King Louis XVI, dethroned – called Citizen Capet) fate was determined by Maximilien de Robespierre. Robespierre said that “Citizen Capet was a ‘criminal toward humanity’ and killing him merely ‘a measure of public safety’.”(Coulter, 2011) This was just one instance, of many, in the span of world history where the fate of one has been decided to protect the fate of many.

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” – Albert Camus

The ‘War on Terror’ will never end. You cannot extricate evil from humans. Humans’ will is subject to the whims and discretion of individual’s choices. You cannot control all of humanity – nor can you protect it. This is a question much greater than us – and I think that we should at least start having a conversation about recognizing that, so that we can attempt to protect the individual liberties and natural rights of Coloradans, and all of those people living in the respective States of this country.

There are bad people all over the planet – and some of them do want to do harm to American people. You will not stop them by killing innocent people who live in those countries – with that approach, you create more enemies. The recent study by Stanford and New York University, outlining the amount of innocent civilian’s deaths in Pakistan, should bring us to have a discussion about the executive powers of a President and the potential impact of wars not declared by Congress. Congress is who we can hold accountable for such atrocities, but they are not technically responsible since the ‘War on Terror’ was not officially declared by them. Also, by having a war on a subject, it will allow the powers to be to perpetuate that war for an infinite amount of time.

Wars on subjects, just like hatred towards factions of people – is a dangerous road that has serious consequences for the life, liberty, and property of citizens. The world is imperfect, and I do think there are bad people roaming around that we should defend ourselves against – but there is a fine line there that we should not cross when it comes to protecting the American people’s civil liberties – including their life and property. Indefinite detainment is real (suspension of habeas corpus is “okay” with provisions in Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)) – and just as we should have constitutional declaration of wars – we should have people in Congress that mean what they swear when then hold their hand over the Constitution. Remember – policy is interpreted by those with the opportunity to use force – could you be a threat to public safety?

In my lifetime, I want to make sure that we, as a country, never turn into a mob that decries that it is okay to kill people “in the name of public safety”. Remember – our actions overseas can soon reflect on our actions towards our own citizens. We are being terrorized into thinking that killing innocent people is okay if we are protecting public safety, and we have to understand that those human beings who have lost loved ones are full of pain and remorse from their losses – which we would have too if someone was flying drones over us day and night (oh wait, we do already have that, they just haven’t been outfitted with ammunition, yet).

There is a place for war – but there is also a place for peace. To truly protect our country, I think we should have a discussion of a more efficient means of implementing a smart and strong foreign policy that truly protects the borders and economy of this country.

If you think my concern is controversial or conspiracy-based – just ask our young men and women returning from overseas, and they will most likely have a story that backs this up.

 

Resources:

Coulter, A. (2011). Demonic. Crown Forum. p.112

Greenwald, G. (September 25, 2012). New Stanford/NYU study documents the civilian terror from Obama’s drones. Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths?newsfeed=true

 

To read the whole report: Stanford Law School/ New York University School of Law. (September 2012). Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan

 

Gearing Up for World War III

“If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between “for” and “against” is the mind’s worst disease.” – Sent-ts’an

 

Trade sanctions, in a global economy (like we operate in), could be considered an act of war. The embargo on the import of Iranian oil by the European Union has significant implications for all of us. Iran – the supplier of oil for India, China, and Russia – is being forced to take an action. Either they will stand up for themselves, they will get assistance from China (who are already negotiating with them), or the desires of the West will effectively replace the regime in an act that we have seen time and time again. All of this is a sure bet that the United States is getting its nose into some pretty bad business. Is this about democracy? Is this about terrorism? Is this about elite control of resources and wealth?

India’s Population: 1,170,938,000

China’s Population: 1,338,299,500

Russia’s Population: 141,750,000

European Union’s Population: 490,426,060

Total: 3,141,413,560

United States’ Population: 307,000,000

 

The United States is just 9.8% of this entire population of people who will be drastically affected by an oil embargo in the Strait of Hormuz. Which makes one think about our foreign policy. And why we keep intervening when our country is broke (15 trillion dollars – we cannot even “produce” our way out of this at this point). And why we keep purchasing foreign oil when we have our own oil and energy resources to develop. And why we keep arming regimes, helping other regimes, then over-throwing those regimes that we arm and help, in the name of democracy while killing thousands and thousands of innocent people and calling the lives of our troops expendable, and the deaths from these continual interventions “collateral damage”. I am sick of it.

If this is about oil – we need to take a look at what we are doing right here in our own country. Renewable resources, coal, oil, and gas – are all readily available for us to take advantage of – why aren’t we? We need jobs, right? Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot and meddling in other countries affairs?

If this is about control of resources – why is the United States the supreme dictator of sovereign nations’ resources? What made us better than everyone else? Can’t these countries make decisions and make mistakes without our guidance and leadership? They may actually want that.

The argument back will always be a fear-based, war-mongering approach of “They are out to get us, kill us, etc., so we must stop them before they do!”. Well, what if we don’t have any money to do that? What would the smart approach be? How about developing our own country’s resources so we are not as dependent upon foreign oil? How about working on a sound currency and monetary policy that does not allow the power elites to print money, create inflation (the most insidious of taxes), and erode the American people’s wealth through a central bank called the Federal Reserve? How about bringing our troops home to build our own national defense (not offense) and protect our own people, and protect our own borders?

Why does this sound so extreme when it is what Jesus Christ would tell us to do?   Jesus Christ was someone who believed in the truth, in loving thy neighbors, in exercising peace and dialogue. Why are we not taking the high road and acting like better neighbors? Why aren’t we trying out the golden rule for a change? This interventionist stuff is not working – isn’t that obvious? The United States has been at war basically since its inception. And maybe that is not a good thing – there are other countries that do very well from a quality of life standpoint that are very peaceful. We can attack others who attack us, but we have the military capability and might to isolate the “bad guys” – we do not need to occupy other countries’ sovereign lands and kill innocent people indiscriminately. Not to mention create more pain and problems from the weapons of war.

If you think I am a “softie” by saying this, let me reaffirm that I think that every American should be armed – I think the federal government should arm them (actually Constitutionally mandated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16), and I think we need to protect our country. If someone attacks us from abroad, we can constitutionally use the Letters of Marque and Reprisal to isolate them and have them punished. And if we do need to go to war, it can be declared by Congress – which is constitutional – and not what we have done most recently with the “wars” that we are in.

I want my fellow Americans to be the healthiest, strongest, and most liberated people in the world, and I want us to create the economic soil that must be amended in order for our seeds of prosperity to grow. And we can start this by responsibly using our own resources, and stop participating in actions that will create the next world war. That is why we need to elect new representatives into Congress – people with a stake in the game, people who live and work in this country and want to see our nation have sound economic growth so that our children and grand-children can enjoy exercising free will, personal responsibility, having private property rights, and living with civil liberties that make us free. This is why I am running for the United States House of Representatives – to amend the soil for future generations, and to use this country’s resources for our own economic well-being and benefit.

CREATIVE DESIGN FROM BROOKLYN

Big or small, we’ve got a solution when you need it. Our advanced service and support tools provide step-by-stepinstructions without being put on hold or waiting in line.