In this episode of the Peace Radicals Podcast, Marc and Andy discuss the ins and outs of the Libertarian movement and whether or not you should ever aggress on someone according to the Non-Aggression Principle and Rule #1 of the Live and Let Live Legal Principle with Founder and Chair of the Mises Caucus, Michael Heise. The Mises Caucus is a caucus within the Libertarian Party founded by Michael Heise in 2017.
Find out more by clicking here: [ Ссылка ]
To skip the intro click here: [ Ссылка ]
Live and Let Live is the world’s only real peace movement. The Movement is organized around a fundamental principle we call the Live and Let Live Principle. As greater numbers of people truly accept the Live and Let Live Principle, we will necessarily evolve towards a world predominated by both freedom and peace.
The Live and Let Live Principle essentially holds that aggression is wrong. There is simply no way to achieve a free or peaceful world so long as the law permits people, groups, or governments to aggress against others. With aggression outlawed, competent adults would be entitled to both define and peacefully pursue their happiness. Competent adults should be in charge of their own lives, property, money, and time. They have the right to be left alone or to peacefully and fairly contract with other competent adults regarding their property.
A free society requires the proper balance between the rights of one person to do whatever they want with their property with the equally important rights of others not to be disturbed in their affairs by the activities of others. This is the essence of freedom.
People adhering to the Live and Let Live Principle agree that the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion is wrong in all cases. It remains wrong even if the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion is employed to accomplish desirable moral goals. It is not possible to aggress our way to a peaceful society.
It isn’t only the actual initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion that violates the rights of others. The substantial threat of such an initiation also violates another’s rights. It is for this same reason that we recognize a justified act of self-defense even before an actual use of unjustified force. That we don’t always agree on exactly which particular circumstances allow a justified act of self-defense doesn’t mean we fail to recognize the principle that one need not wait until another’s fist hits their face before such person can legally and properly act to prevent the aggression.
Learn More: [ Ссылка ]
