An explanation of the Non-Aggression Principle and how it relates to the death of Ahmed Arbery
An idea that many come to understand naturally over time is the idea that they don’t like people hurting them, stopping them, or taking stuff from them. Even children as they play together develop these ideas naturally. Often you will see one child who is not accustomed to sharing take a toy from another child, and crying and hurt feeling ensue. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is a manifestation of these naturally developed idea, with the application of reason. If you truly believe in the NAP and apply this simple understanding of our natural world and our natural rights, then you begin to understand just how statism can be an unnecessarily cruel idea.
An example that highlights this cognitive dissonance in the uniform application of the NAP as people would want it used around them, is the case of Ahmed Arbery. There are countless hot takes out there that because he chose to charge the man who was brandishing a shotgun and blocking his path, that Ahmed deserved to die. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes is the normal retort when you question people on this. For context here are several stories that need to all be read to gain a truthful picture. Different news organizations have added their spin on this story, politicizing it along racial lines, or as a way to demonize gun ownership and responsible citizens policing their own neighborhoods. I have a slightly different, yet no more unique, take on this incident. Below are stories to help form an accurate picture.
Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges (New York Times)Ahmed Arbery did indeed, supposedly on more than one occasions, step foot onto a construction site that he did not belong on. Georgia state law aside, objectively this is wrong, but is it egregious enough to warrant being searched for, cornered, and threatened with firearms? I think this is the most important question. It is a discussion of proportional force, and if we should value misdemeanors over human life. There are several reasons this could have been spun along racial lines, namely this article here, which is pretty damning in my opinion. Here you can see that several people had also gone looking inside that very same property, but as of the time of writing this blog, none have been charged, hunted down, or shot.
So how does the NAP fit into this. Was Ahmed Arbery the first person to commit an act of aggression? What is an act of aggression? I think the honest way to categorize it would be any attempt to prevent, remove, or violate a person’s natural rights to freedom of movement, liberty, or property. Ahmed did in fact trespass in the loose interpretation, but did he commit an aggression? Did he steal anything? As of right now there is zero evidence that he stole anything, just conjecture. Items were reported stolen at a previous date, but I also have found zero proof that it was Ahmed, although on the surface, he could be guilty. The day he was shot though, nothing was taken. Not one single item that can be traced back to Arbery. So that does not count as an aggression by a reasonable measurement. The owner did confirm this and never called the McMichaels, it was in fact a neighbor.
So who aggressed who first? The McMichael’s were a father and son duo who were called upon to conduct a “citizens arrest” on Arbery. Multiple reports of trespassing on the property in question had been documented, and theft had been reported. The McMichaels, both armed with firearms, got in their vehicles and chased down Arbery. They then cornered him, while brandishing shotguns and yelling at him. These facts are not in dispute. So going back to the idea of what aggression is, the prevention of freedom of movement, and a threat to his life from two strangers is almost certainly well within the ideals of what is considered aggression. So the first verifiable aggression was done by the McMichaels. Now that I hope you have been convinced that the aggression was initiated by the McMichaels, let’s discuss why this is then manslaughter at a minimum. It should be noted that although the father was former law enforcement, he is, and was not at the time of Arbery’s death.
Arbery, one could infer, was faced with a decision. Submit to two men, armed with firearms who have blocked his path, or fight. A simple fight or flight mechanism built into all of us is usually triggered in such circumstances. Arbery was an Air Force veteran, and although his service seems to have been short, no doubt he did at minimum go through the stressors of basic training for the Air Force. If training is conducted properly, the idea of flight is in fact trained out of you. That is the general idea anyway. So given what we know about Arbery’s background, the fact that he chose fight should be of no surprise. When cornered and threatened, the idea that any free man should just submit is only stated by those who know they would never fight for their own life. The benevolence of those who would seek to take from them is all they have separating them from death. You can infer this from any social media discussion you happen upon. Even on Minds.com I have been told it was dumb to fight back. No, expecting fair treatment from two men you don't know who have cornered you and brandished shotguns at you is the definition of dumb.
I think it is quite clear that the McMichaels did in fact aggress Arbery first, and therefore the consequences of those actions, missteps, and failure to use reasonable force all fall on them. I look forward to reading your good faith disputes in the comments.
In Liberty, Redleg