Where is the Libertarian Pacifist Tradition?

[Jacobus]

I liked Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.  Tolstoy takes a completely different approach to man's relationship to the state than I've seen from other individualist anarchists or libertarians.   

However, Tolstoy wrote 100 years ago.  Who has carried on his pacifist tradition in the libertarian movement since then?  The voluntaryists seem closest, but other than a few short articles on voluntaryist.org I have not seen much there.

Are there any other classics of pacifism? 

There are a few aspects of Tolstoy's book that limit its appeal in my opinion:
* Argues from a spiritualist Christian perspective
* As with other individualist anarchists of the time, did not have benefit of modern economic theory and is sympathatic to Marxist theories
* Focuses on relationship of man and state but does not address problems of "private" crime

Is it necessary to seek a spiritual path to adopt pacifism?  Has anyone argued for pacifism from a non-spiritual perspective?

Have any writers integrated libertarian aspects like Austrian economics or the NAP with pacifism?

What pacifists have addressed the counter-scenarios that are commonly raised of being under direct physical attack (or witnessing someone else undergo direct attack)?

[Vitruvian]

Robert LeFevre was a pacifist.

[Russell Kanning]

I have enjoyed many of your posts and consider you a fellow traveler on this path of peace and happines .... but did you read the whole book?

he has at least one chapter dealing with why what Jesus said makes sense .... no matter if you look at things from a Christian perspective ... it is very reason based ... usually too much for more people since he spends so much time proving his point.

part of the book talks about how not resisting evil by force is followed by a minority

spends a whole chapter if not a huge chunk of the book on the issue of private crime

what part of Marxism urges voluntary action and absolutely no coercion?

Tolstoy seemed to answer all of his critics (this book was a response to critics and additional historical info available after his first major book on his beliefs about how he should live his life) and the questions are the exact same ones as today.

if you look up pacifists and christian anarchists ... you will find small groups.
what some of us are doing here in The Shire is unusual ... not many follow this path which contradicts the world's methods of dealing mostly with force and destruction

I don't think you find too many "libertarian" "pacifists" since they are busy debating economics to live a different life

Do not let your dislike of religions to turn you from the path of truth .... just because most people that call themselves christians do not follow his teaching ... doesn't mean that it isn't the best way

random thoughts from a guy who thought Tolstoy's book rocked

[Jacobus]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Russell.  I did read the whole book, but I did not find it the most accessible read (part of the reason I am interested to see if there are other authors) and I am sure I missed some things.  I'll have to go back and look for his treatment of private crime. 

Regarding Marxism, it seemed to me that he adhered to the labor theory of value and rejected the idea of private property.  He certainly rejected the aspects of Marxism that required using force on others.  But I struggle with questions related to property and violence.  Some of this was discussed in the thread "Should protesters respect private property". 

I do not dislike religion (though I used to), and I consider myself to be following a spiritual path.  I actually appreciate Tolstoy's Christianity.  A lot of what he wrote, particularly with respect to the Sermon on the Mount, clicked with me.  I suspect that I might actually be a Christian ...  if you don't have to believe in all of the miracles or resurrection stuff.  I plan to read Tolstoy's book on the New Testament to see if it clicks.     

It would just seem sad to me if such a powerful pro-peace, anti-government message has been disregarded by the people (i.e. libertarians) I would expect would most appreciate it and wish to expand upon it. 

It's like I've found an awesome CD of a band I'd never heard of.  I love listening to the CD, but I also want to share the experience with others and see if other bands have based their sound on this music.

Vitruvian, thanks for pointing out Robert Lefevre.

[Russell Kanning]

most have disregarded it .... it is a path that gets you into trouble with the powers that be .... wherever and whenever you are

[Russell Kanning]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Russell.

it was just my ramblings of what I think a lot about

[Russell Kanning]

I'll have to go back and look for his treatment of private crime. 

He writes specifically about the typical question of what you do if you see a rascal going after a young woman. I get that question about every 2 weeks.

Regarding Marxism, it seemed to me that he adhered to the labor theory of value and rejected the idea of private property.  He certainly rejected the aspects of Marxism that required using force on others.  But I struggle with questions related to property and violence.

But isn't that the worst part of marxism ? ... the part about taking things for others to have?
I don't mind being around a communist who never uses force ... how bad can he be ... a bad conversationalist or business partner? You can just avoid him.

I actually appreciate Tolstoy's Christianity.  A lot of what he wrote, particularly with respect to the Sermon on the Mount, clicked with me.  I suspect that I might actually be a Christian ...  if you don't have to believe in all of the miracles or resurrection stuff.

I consider a Christian to be someone who follows Christ. The term isn't that important ... it is what you do. A tree is known by it's fruit ... as he said. You are going to label/respect/disrespect/ignore/join/oppose me ... based on what I do ... not what I claim to be.

Why not seek truth? ... and if that leads you down a certain path ... then you can adopt those labels if you choose. Each of us has steps we should take ... they might all be different ... but they are the right ones to take next.

For you it might be writing a good essay in the tradition of Thoreau, Tolstoy, Rothbard .... for me it is helping out people in my life and standing up sometimes to the bad guys.

[dalebert]

For you it might be writing a good essay in the tradition of Thoreau, Tolstoy, Rothbard .... for me it is helping out people in my life and standing up sometimes to the bad guys.

For me it is drawing cartoons that make fun of violent people. 

[Caleb]

I liked Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.  Tolstoy takes a completely different approach to man's relationship to the state than I've seen from other individualist anarchists or libertarians.   

However, Tolstoy wrote 100 years ago.  Who has carried on his pacifist tradition in the libertarian movement since then?  The voluntaryists seem closest, but other than a few short articles on voluntaryist.org I have not seen much there.

I don't think anyone has completely carried his torch. I think Tolstoy was completely idealistic, and for that I love him as a human being; it seems that he has, however, influenced a lot of people. Gandhi, of course, and from that the entire non-violent wing of the civil rights movement; but those movements took more of his method while sacrificing his eventual aims. In that sense, they were more realistic enactments of his vision, but sacrificed the idealism that, to me, gives his teachings real punch.

For what it's worth, I think the catholic worker movement has been the truest to Tolstoy's ideas.

Are there any other classics of pacifism?

I've wondered that myself. There are plenty of resources on pacifism, but nothing that I have read that just hits me like Tolstoy. I love his short essay called Letter to a Hindoo. Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin are excellent, but once again, this is coming from a spiritual perspective, and a somewhat more religious spiritual perspective than Tolstoy.

There are a few aspects of Tolstoy's book that limit its appeal in my opinion:
* Argues from a spiritualist Christian perspective

A Marxist is one who follows the teachings of Marx. A Christian ought to mean a person who follows the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, there has come to be a whole doctrinal ball of wax associated with the term "Christian", but at its simplest and truest form a Christian is simply an adherent to the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. I don't think you have to be a theist to believe that what Jesus said (particularly in his Sermon on the Mount) makes good sense, and is a good rule of life.

* As with other individualist anarchists of the time, did not have benefit of modern economic theory and is sympathatic to Marxist theories

I don't know that is true. Adam Smith wrote in the late 18th century, a full hundred years before Tolstoi, so Tolstoi (a very educated man,) would have no doubt had at least a cursory training in economics. Whereas the communal nature of primitive Christianity may seem superficially like it is similar to Marxism, we mustn't forget that Christians were practicing voluntary, peaceful communism some 1800 years prior to Marx. One of the most insightful commentaries I've ever heard about Marxism was the comment that it is a Christian heresy, inasmuch as it shares the same vision, and incorporates many of the underlying axioms of Christianity, and in fact seems to be in many ways a reaction to Christianity. Unfortunately, a violent one.

* Focuses on relationship of man and state but does not address problems of "private" crime

I think this goes back to something that you noted earlier, in that Tolstoy is much less concerned with what others should do than he is with the question of what I should do. What is morally right for me to do. As an idealist, Tolstoy was concerned less with making something work than he was with doing the right thing. I cannot control crime, but I can ensure that I don't participate in it.

Is it necessary to seek a spiritual path to adopt pacifism?  Has anyone argued for pacifism from a non-spiritual perspective?

I don't think so, but it helps.

Have any writers integrated libertarian aspects like Austrian economics or the NAP with pacifism?

I think these come from incredibly different angles, so much so that I can't even begin to explain it. Before I read Tolstoy, I was a pretty hard-core (small l) libertarian. I was concerned with rights, equal justice, the rule of law, restitution, etc. Tolstoy changed my life, and the difference is a fundamental one. It's not so much that the ideas of the NAP are wrong per se, or that Austrian economics is wrong, because I think that a free market approach is in many ways a just one. it's just that I think the emphasis changes completely away from trying to set up any sort of system, and more on looking inward towards what it is that I should be doing. And I can't control what others do, so spending a lot of time focusing on the perfect economic system or the perfect justice system starts to seem a little counterproductive.

What pacifists have addressed the counter-scenarios that are commonly raised of being under direct physical attack (or witnessing someone else undergo direct attack)?

I pm'd Menno about this the other day, because I didn't want to hijack a thread, but this seems like a good place to put it. I think that pacifism is a philosophical position. But we are humans. The thing is that no one can say what they will do in any given situation. They can say what they ought to do. They can say what they think is moral to do. But they can't say what they will do. Because humans have an instinctual nature to them that is not completely under our control. If someone comes at me, I can say that although I don't believe it is moral for me to harm them, I can also say that I am a human with natural human instincts, including a desire to stay alive, and I cannot guarantee what I will or won't do at that time. I hope to live my life in a moral way; sometimes, however, I "sin". That is the nature of humanity. It is one thing to acknowledge this, and another to base a whole philosophy or a whole way of life on it or to attempt to justify harming another person on this basis. As a pacifist, if someone defends themselves at a moment of extreme crisis, I will probably have not a single word of condemnation for that person. However, the moment that person tries to systematize this, I will speak out against it, because the effort to justify force under any circumstances, the effort to determine when and under what conditions force might be justified, always carries with it so many extra burdens, so many extra scenarios that cause corruption, and practically begs for an external authority to regulate it, control it, keep it within suitable boundaries.

[Russell Kanning]

maybe also the best teacher is example instead of another book .... most pacifists live life instead of write about it.

all of the teachings of Jesus don't even fill up a large book ... yet it is enough

tolstoy is long winded ... and he is one of the only modern writers on the subject

people that don't want to impose a system on others don't seem to spend as much time writing down 5 year plans and stuph

[Jacobus]

maybe also the best teacher is example instead of another book .... most pacifists live life instead of write about it.

But I don't personally know any such teachers or examples.  Right now, I can only know them through reading their beliefs and accounts.  Should I move my family in with you?

people that don't want to impose a system on others don't seem to spend as much time writing down 5 year plans and stuph

* quietly crumples up and throws away half-written essay "How We Can Be Free in 5 Years" *

[Lloyd Danforth]

 

[Jacobus]

I think these come from incredibly different angles, so much so that I can't even begin to explain it. Before I read Tolstoy, I was a pretty hard-core (small l) libertarian. I was concerned with rights, equal justice, the rule of law, restitution, etc. Tolstoy changed my life, and the difference is a fundamental one. It's not so much that the ideas of the NAP are wrong per se, or that Austrian economics is wrong, because I think that a free market approach is in many ways a just one. it's just that I think the emphasis changes completely away from trying to set up any sort of system, and more on looking inward towards what it is that I should be doing. And I can't control what others do, so spending a lot of time focusing on the perfect economic system or the perfect justice system starts to seem a little counterproductive.

I agree with this.  Before Tolstoy I had been thinking that the focus of many libertarians seemed too systematic and top-down instead of individual.  Even among libertarian arguments, the ones I found most powerful were ones that went something like "Is this a law you would point a gun at someone to enforce?". 

I guess when you spend time making systematic arguments, you tend to condition your freedom on external factors.  You only feel free when you get enough other people to agree with you.  Since reading Tolstoy, I've felt more like my freedom is within me now and I don't have to wait for other people to buy into a system.

After intellectually investing so much in traditional libertarian approaches, I still have some lingering attachments though.  Plus, some of my loved family remain in the "rights" paradigm.

If someone comes at me, I can say that although I don't believe it is moral for me to harm them, I can also say that I am a human with natural human instincts, including a desire to stay alive, and I cannot guarantee what I will or won't do at that time. I hope to live my life in a moral way; sometimes, however, I "sin". That is the nature of humanity. It is one thing to acknowledge this, and another to base a whole philosophy or a whole way of life on it or to attempt to justify harming another person on this basis. As a pacifist, if someone defends themselves at a moment of extreme crisis, I will probably have not a single word of condemnation for that person. However, the moment that person tries to systematize this, I will speak out against it, because the effort to justify force under any circumstances, the effort to determine when and under what conditions force might be justified, always carries with it so many extra burdens, so many extra scenarios that cause corruption, and practically begs for an external authority to regulate it, control it, keep it within suitable boundaries.

I agree that someone acting out in a moment of conflict is not something I would condemn, especially because I can envision scenarios where I might do the same.  As you note, the most important aspect is whether one attempts to systematize this.

I've been discussing this issue with my brother, who is a small-l libertarian who takes the rights-based approach to issues.  I think the best approach is to truly internalize non-violence and compassion.  If that occurs, then one will act in a true way in such a situation.  However, pushed to set forth what I would ideally do in such a situation, I wrote:   

If I were to come upon a teenager beating up an old lady I believe that I would feel justified in using force to stop the battery. You would not?

I would tend not to interject using force but favor confronting him in a non-physical way (e.g. shouting at him "Stop!").  However, I would not completely rule out all use of force.  I don't think I would counter-attack the aggressor, but perhaps raise an obstacle between him and the victim.  I might be willing to use force up to temporarily restraining him.  I would rule out use or threat of deadly force.

However, these examples make me a bit uneasy because they assume I have the ability to physically overcome (or at least scare off) the agressor.  Any example involving government agents, for example, ends with me saying I would never attempt to defend myself or others using violence.  Why should I then use violence in those exceedingly rare hypotheticals where I would judge I could physically overcome the agressor? 

[Russell Kanning]

you funny man

I agree with you in your last couple of posts.
Did Tolstoy talk about "rights" ... I can't remember? Some people do seem to be trapped by demanding their rights and being constantly disappointed by the government.
Gandhi used to talk about the power being in your hands. You don't have to wait that way.

[Caleb]

I agree with this.  Before Tolstoy I had been thinking that the focus of many libertarians seemed too systematic and top-down instead of individual.  Even among libertarian arguments, the ones I found most powerful were ones that went something like "Is this a law you would point a gun at someone to enforce?". 

I've started to believe a paradox, and I'm probably not the best person to say this because I don't think I can articulate it very well, and someone will come on here and say that I'm not being rational. But the way I am starting to believe is that I cannot be free completely until I renounce all control. But the only thing I can say is that, even though it sounds like a paradox, I don't think it is, because all I am doing is acknowledging the truth: I don't have control. To believe otherwise, to me, seems like a fantasy. I can choose my own path, but someone else *can* stand in my way. Someone else *can* do mean things to me. And I cannot always prevent that or stop it. So the end result is that once I give up the illusion of control, I start to focus less on things that give me this false security of control, and focus more on what I can do, what I ought to do. And how much of myself am I willing to sacrifice to regain that false sense of control?

After intellectually investing so much in traditional libertarian approaches, I still have some lingering attachments though.

Yeah. Me too. That's why it's helpful for me to think of them as "not wrong". Because I got to where I am today only along a path, and that was one step on the path for me, and maybe tomorrow I will look back at where I am today and see things clearer then than I do now, but it was all a step along the path, a journey towards greater understanding. And a lot of it wasn't wrong, because it isn't like a true or false test. Right or wrong. Newton wasn't wrong, he just wasn't complete. The danger from Newton is when you use him to try to contradict Einstein. It's kind of like that. Everything I've ever learned or thought before isn't useless, it just can't be an impediment to me.

However, these examples make me a bit uneasy because they assume I have the ability to physically overcome (or at least scare off) the agressor.  Any example involving government agents, for example, ends with me saying I would never attempt to defend myself or others using violence.  Why should I then use violence in those exceedingly rare hypotheticals where I would judge I could physically overcome the agressor? 

That's just it, it starts to become more of the might makes right scenario. I will overcome this person because I can. I won't try to overcome this person because I can't. And so on. I'm probably way too idealistic to live in this reality. But I do believe that everyone is redeemable. yes, maineshark, even hitler. If someone broke in my house, and I was in this "defending my rights" mode, I might feel justified in shooting that person. But what if I later found out that the person was a philanthropist and all-around saint who had been suffering from a psychotic episode due to mental illness? How would I feel about my rights then? It would put everything back in perspective. That person now becomes a victim, not an aggressor, in need of healing, not punishment. And then to look at the world from that perspective, to view the violent condition of the world as a sign of sickness, I just can't see violence as being a source of great healing, no matter who wields it.