A Voluntary Peace
By Scott Schneider
Can you force peace?
The term “peace” holds various meanings, usually dependent on certain contexts. For instance, what peace means in the domain of international relations is very different from its meaning in an individual context. In some circumstances peace refers to the absence of violence. However, an absence of violence does not necessarily mean there is no threat of violence. An absence of violence doesn’t even imply freedom.
Freedom is only achieved when someone is able to act however he or she chooses, so long as that person allows others the same. Forcing someone to act, or not to act, is restricting their freedom. Force can facilitate freedom by limiting those who are initiating violence on others. In other words, it is justifiable to use force against those who are restricting another’s freedom. However, if someone uses force to limit the non-violent actions of another, reasonable people do not consider this as any sort of peace. Peace, then, requires more than the absence of violence. It requires, at a minimum, that people refrain from restricting the freedom of another.
Freedom, the ability for one to act in any nonviolent way one may choose, requires force only to the extent such force is used upon those who restrict another’s freedom. The mechanism to which humanity has deferred to facilitate this type of force is law. Law, however, is also a mechanism to for people to use force against freedom.
Peace with one rule and one suggestion
Is there any guiding principle humans can follow to keep the law focused on protecting freedom rather than restricting it? Indeed there is. All law must follow the general rule needed for freedom: no one is allowed to initiate violence upon another. Using force to restrict another’s freedom, then, is itself an act of aggression. This rule is referred to as the Legal Principle.
The Legal Principle means the law can never allow someone to aggress against another’s freedom. Implementing this principle invalidates any law which imposes force upon people who are not aggressing. Law today fails this standard. Many crimes, regulations, and legal processes actively restrict the freedom of non-aggressors. Using the law to force people to follow certain values or to behave with certain characteristics, even in the interests of peace, can never lead to peace.
What leads to peace is people using their freedom to choose to live by certain values and to behave with positive characteristics. The key element here is choice. If one accepts that people should be forced to be civil, trustworthy, or kind, then one cannot be in favor of peace. Being of high character, then, can never be a rule. It can only ever be a suggestion.
Voluntary morality
The Live and Let Live Movement is a global peace initiative founded on two principles:
a Legal Principle: the rule to not aggress, and
a Moral Principle: the suggestion to aspire for excellence.
Applying these two principles safeguards freedom and encourages real peace.
If in doubt:
forcing peace is initiating an act of aggression
initiating an act of aggression breaks the Legal Principle
breaking the Legal Principle prevents freedom
freedom is necessary for peace
forcing peace, therefore, is contrary to achieving peace.
Voluntarily pursuing peace is the viable, and necessary, alternative.
Learn more about the Live and Let Live Movement: here.
Join the online community on Circle: here.
