The use of physical force to inflict harm or damage on others.
A philosophy of avoiding, preventing and reducing violence as much as possible.
Effective strategies for achieving freedom depend on strict adherence to non-violence. Why?
- Violence is destructive. It often damages potentially valuable property.
- Violence can unintentionally harm innocent bystanders, a violation of NAP.
- Violence can undermine justice. It can damage stolen wealth, preventing the return of that wealth to the rightful owners, e.g., the taxpayers.
- Violence begets violence. To be free you want to shield yourself from aggression, not to encourage retaliation.
- Violence we commit can be used as propaganda to undermine the freedom movement (to rally our opposition and alienate our participants and supporters.)
- Witnesses may not be able to determine who initiated violence, and even if you were defending yourself, you may be viewed as the aggressor.
Violence against government strongly discouraged
If armed government agents threaten your life, you may think you’re justified in using violence to defend yourself, but is it the best option? In today’s world, generally no, it’s not.
We want to be known as those who reduce violence, not as those who embrace it. The more peaceful we are, the more violent government will appear in comparison. As a result, the nature of government will be further exposed and more people will wake up and join us.
The government, although grossly inefficient and incompetent, is still incredibly dangerous. They’ve spent thousands of years and trillions of dollars developing weapons that tear people apart, and prisons that cage millions of innocent people. They are shielded from justice. So they lack natural disincentives to refrain from violence. In fact, many individuals in government are punished if they refuse to obey violent commands.
For these reasons, using violence against government can be suicidal. I want us to achieve freedom and happiness. Not to die at the hands of aggressors.
Once we achieve a free society, we will be strong enough to defend ourselves against all aggressors including government agents. But even in that scenario, violence is probably not the best way to do it. Participating in free trade with the citizens of neighboring governments may be a much more effective defensive strategy.
Non-violence does not mean defenselessness or unpreparedness
Someone who believes in non-violence should conceal carry multiple weapons at all times. Why? Because when peaceful people conceal carry weapons, overall violence decreases, i.e., rapes, murders, assaults and robberies.
The reality is that most violent criminals prefer defenseless victims and less risk.
If you’re skeptical, read “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott.
I’m not saying a gun is my ideal weapon. Frankly it’s not. But in some cases, it’s the only option that can save innocent lives by stopping a violent criminal, and it certainly has been proven to deter violent crime.
So yes, I always conceal carry multiple lethal and less lethal weapons including a gun, knife, pepper spray, etc. because I prefer non-violence.
And yes, carrying lethal weapons is perfectly compatible with the philosophy of non-violence.
Those who discourage or prohibit responsible, mature, peaceful individuals from carrying weapons are making the world a more violent place.