by: Phil Jacobson, LPNC Judiciary Board and Messaging Committee

Is political violence ever justified for libertarians? Does believing the libertarian doctrine that initiation of force is never acceptable allow for political violence?

If one is an absolute pacifist, of course not. For a pacifist, no violence is justified, not even in response to an initiation of force from someone else. A strict pacifist thus refuses both to initiate force or to answer force with force and consequently qualifies as a practicing “libertarian”, whether acknowledging that label or not. So we can say that it is not true that libertarian philosophy alone justifies political violence. But since libertarianism per se allows for retaliatory force, for some libertarians political violence is not inherently wrong. So the simplest answer to the question which began this essay is “yes, or rather it can, but not always”. More specifically, political violence may be acceptable to a believer in libertarian philosophy as a response to an initiated force by another person or persons. However there are additional concerns, for a libertarian who is not also a pacifist. 

The question must be rephrased: Given an initiation of force, what kind of retaliatory violence is acceptable to libertarianism? What kind of violent response is appropriate for a specific situation? Let’s begin by asking what is the appropriate objective for retaliatory force? While this question can be controversial among libertarians, most would agree that the primary goal of retaliatory force is to stop further initiation of force.

Given that objective, retaliatory force should not be a blanket license to inflict damage of an indefinite type and duration. Retaliatory force should be limited. Assessing the most appropriate type and extent of force to be considered must reflect specific circumstances in each case. But it seems clear that at some point it is possible to go too far, to inflict damage beyond what is needed to stop an aggressor from further initiation of force. At such a point, further “retaliation” becomes initiation itself. Again, each case must be assessed individually. 

It is clear, however, that when assessing specific cases, one must consider the vary wide range of intensity that comes under the heading “retaliatory force”. At one extreme is the possibility of full scale war using major military units, intended to impose unconditional surrender on the opponent. This is not just “political violence”, it is war. At the other extreme, no matter what the scale of grievances, is the possibility of merely producing enough mild inconveniences for the opponent to get attention, with little impact beyond symbolic pressure. What we typically call “political violence” falls closer to the latter than the former.

It is usually wiser ethically and more practical to try to keep violence to a minimum - to avoid it entirely where purely symbolic action can effectively block initiated force. But at times, for the non-pacifist libertarian, peaceful protest is not enough. If the aggressor seeks, for instance, to commit genocide or to enslave the defender, meaningful retaliatory force may be the only option. As a recent protest chant says, “resistance is justified when people are occupied”. Varying levels of harshness regarding “occupation” will impact the varying value of peaceful protest vs. the value of some level of “resistance”.

But while technology has increased the lethality and precision of mechanized violence, it has also increased the impact of communication systems. Those for whom getting attention is the main rationale for resorting to political violence, have more powerful and affordable tools than ever.

Perhaps being more disciplined when merely considering political violence is the most powerful tool of all. Sometimes during public political activism it is difficult to determine who threw the first punch, who initiated force. That’s still true but less so. Crowd shared camera footage can provide a lot of evidence, sources of pride or embarrassment. Thus, among political activists of most persuasions there is value in promoting discipline regarding political violence. Activists would in many cases benefit far more from documentation of their opposition’s public behavior than they would benefit from political violence against opposition supporters or their property.