Down for a NAP

 Down for a NAP

© 2024 Ross Williams

I just emerged from a heated discussion with “conservatives” about one of the few subjects which I – a libertarian – am diametrically opposed to “conservatives”. That subject is abortion.

I put “conservative” in quotes because what generally passes for conservatism among modern “conservatives” is not conservatism, but a melange of prudishness that should result in a boon for proctologists removing sticks lodged in uncomfortable places. Political conservatism is – once again – the practice of expanding government power and influence only insofar as the government can afford to do so without increasing sovereign debt or the tax burden on its citizens. It is not a political philosophy based upon forcing the government to abide by any limitations on its power, as defined by – say – a Constitution. That political philosophy is called libertarianism.

At any rate, the discussion devolved along predictable lines – predictable because I'd had the same discussion over thirty-plus years with everyone imaginable. In this recent version, I quoted the Constitution; the “conservatives” quoted each other, various non-falsifiable moral certainties, marxists, “progressives” [another quotated term of political ideology due to every “progressive” pushing everything but progress], and court precedent built upon philosophies promoted by various non-falsifiable moral certainties, marxists and "progressives". They quoted anything that would get them to their desired conclusion even if it meant tying themselves into rhetorical pretzels to do it.

My position on the subject is clear: I am foursquare against abortion. It is among this society's preeminent indicators of irresponsible self-indulgence and narcissistic me-centrism. But it's not the government's business. I can say it's not the government's business because it's not written into the Constitution AS the government's business. The government must stay completely out of the picture. Hence, “conservatives” are not permitted to euchre the government into restricting or banning abortion, and “progressives” are not permitted to wheedle the government into promoting abortion by hook or – as is the “progressive” wont – by crook.

But having mentioned that my position is the libertarian [and therefore constitutional] position, an attempt was made to back me into the corner of having to defend my libertarianism, as if the subject being discussed was me rather than abortion. Having also been involved in this discussion – repeatedly – over the decades as well, I refused to play along. Neither I nor my political philosophy was the subject at hand.

The avenue for attempting this turnabout by circumstantial ad hominem was, as usual, the vacuous Non-Aggression Principle – the NAP, the Holy NAP, and yes that term is intended to be seen as sneering mockery – which is cited by the vast majority of libertarians as the overriding principle of the libertarian political philosophy. I do not accept this notion. For a few reasons.

First, libertarianism is a political philosophy of governance, and virtually all libertarians who screech about and swoon over the Holy NAP reduce it to a moral guidance of personal behavior, which would properly render it into the realm of religion. Instead, virtually all libertarians who salute the Holy NAP in misty-eyed adoration as hippies once did rainbows and unicorns when the subject is utterly abstract, will run screaming from it and deny it exists, parse it to pieces and equivocate it into a demand for pacifism when the philosophy is challenged by real-world circumstances. The libertarian hypocrisy is staggering.

The Holy NAP is supposed to be a principle for guiding sovereign actions in nations that are defined to be libertarian. And, of course, a nation defined to be libertarian is one which promotes liberty. Which is to say, having strict limitation on government powers and the promotion of individual freedoms, even if those freedoms' sole purpose is to act on irresponsible self-indulgence and narcissistic me-centrism.

It is undoubtedly necessary to remind everyone for the umpteenth time that the one thing that every political philosophy ever invented by the power-whoring mind of mankind can agree on is that political power is an absolute dichotomy. It doesn't matter whether the political philosophy is anarchism or absolute despotic totalitarianism; political power in any given circumstance only has two outlets:
1] as a function of government, in which case it is called “authority”; or
2] as a function of the citizen, in which case it is called “rights”.

The only difference between political philosophies is where those philosophies-put-into-practice are willing to draw the lines between powers of government and powers of citizens. In the entire history of human civilization, there has been exactly one libertarian government defined to exist: the United States of America. Every other nation – even other “western democracies” coming into existence after the formation of the US – are patterned upon the historical model of governance: government has what powers it chooses to take, citizens may have the powers the government chooses not to take or which cannot be meaningfully controlled. Many arguments exist – and I have made most of them – that claim the US government has backslid into the historical “Because I Can” model of governance.

The second reason I refuse to accept the Holy NAP as the overriding principle of libertarianism is that if the overriding principle were what I claim it to be – strict limitation of government powers to those defined by the Constitution which created the government, and where the government obeyed those limitations on its powers – then sovereign non-aggression in both domestic and foreign policy would be a necessary and inevitable consequence. Government would simply not have the power to aggress against an individual or foreign entity without just cause.

And it is the “just cause” qualification that is critical. The Constitution defines requirements for just government action, and limits by exclusion, denying unjustness, its power to act on any subject not identified therein. The Constitution does not mention abortion. It declares that “persons born or naturalized” have protectable rights. The government acting against the interests, even the irresponsibly self-indulgent and narcissistic me-centric interests, of an individual in favor of what the Constitution classifies as a non-entity is impermissible aggression under the libertarian philosophy by which our nation was defined.

To alter our understanding of what a governmental just cause would be in this circumstance would require a change to the Constitution. Personally, I don't see that happening, but it's the only option short of outright abandonment of our Constitutional framework. Besides, that abandonment is already being championed by our “progressives”. If and when that constitutional change is successfully completed I will stand behind it. But ONLY if and when. Until then, I will stand behind what the Constitution currently says, even though I personally dislike it.

Because the Constitution is better than the fickle emotions of “conservatives” and sanctimonious exhortations of “progressives”. Or, with regard to most libertarians, hypocritical sophistry.