ZERO AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE – IS THIS REALLY A PRINCIPLE? (Issue 388)

Usually when I write an article, I sit down at the computor and just start writing about a subject which comes to mind. Then there are times when a particular subject has been bothering me for sometime and not always sure what it is that’s bothering me about it.

I really miss those wonderful teachers and mentors I had early on, when I began studying the Philosophy of Freedom, such as Dr. George Boardman, a newspaper columnist and professor at Rampart College who lived in the ghost town of Chloride, Arizona. Frequently I wrote to him about a particular subject, event, article, or opinion which was bothering me and asking him, what it was that bothered me. He would decipher, and always took time to respond.

If he were still alive, I would have sometime ago written and asked him what it is about the “Zero Aggression Principle” which bothers me. Inasmuch as I’m on my own to figure it out, I decided to write this article.

First of all, zero is nothing, without value, a cardinal number indicating the absence of a number. Secondly, aggression is an encroachment, or unprovoked attack. Thirdly, a Principle is a fundamental Truth. A truth so clear it may be proved or contradicted by a proposition which is clearer. A comprehensive rule or doctrine which furnishes a basis for others. To qualify as a principle it must be undeviating and immutable. And have no exception.

Zero Aggression is a double negative. If one says, “I am not unhappy” or “I didn’t see nobody,” those are double negatives.

Aggression is a value judgment and not a Principle. Several days ago, my 5 year old grandson was in the yard with 8 other children, running and playing. I sat on my steps watching them. One 8 year old ran and knocked another boy over in the grass. They both got up laughing. Shortly thereafter, a 9 year old ran and knocked a 7 year old down in the grass, and they started fighting. The 7 year old was crying and fighting the 9 year old, viewing the playful act as aggression, intent on hurting him. Aggression is in the eyes of the beholder, a value judgment of an act which might have a different meaning for different persons.

I have written other articles on Principles and Value Judgments, which are still posted on my blogsite.

Inasmuch as zero is non or nothing, and aggression is a value judgment, in my opinion it is not a Principle by definition.

In this crisis and war of ideas this nation is currently in, I believe it is extremely important we distinguish between Principles and value judgments, to understand the Principles upon which this nation was founded. Namely, individual Freedom and private ownership of property concepts. Both total concepts. And regardless of one’s values relative to those two things, they can be defined as Principles.

Values by their nature are always changing, and Principles by nature and definition never do.

It is admirable to have in one’s toolbox of values, a notion that aggression is not a good thing, an uninvited trespass, but intrepreted differently by different persons.

Living in this era of so much violence and acts of aggression, more important today to understand what it means. Like the recent Times Square bomber, where the bomb failed to detonate, and no one was hurt, we can reasonably assume from the facts, it was intended to be an act of aggression.

Let Freedom Ring

JUST ME
AC
Email: annecleveland@bellsouth.net

• Tweet
• "&title=""">