I like the libertarian principle of non-aggression. What it says, essentially, is live and let live. Don’t commit aggression against another’s person or property – and this is key – don’t use the force of government to commit aggression in your name. A great introduction to the principle of non-aggression can be found in Chapter 1 of Dr. Mary Ruwart’s book Healing our World, available for free online.

In my college years, I used to work nights as a bar bouncer to help keep up with school and living expenses. We bouncers had a term for the guys who came in to the bar, got drunk, and caused trouble – we called it “Budweiser muscle.” Through careful study of behavior over the years, I learned that the guys who got aggressive, those who talked the biggest talk and stirred up the most trouble were the weakest. They were always eager to get others involved in their fight.

I see the same dynamic at work with those who zealously support government and its aggressive wars. They tend to be belligerent nationalists, buying into the war propaganda and talking tough while their government is off killing people.  They allow the government and the media to dehumanize the individuals who are the target of government aggression, so they don’t think twice about their killing.

There is a difference between one who is fit for freedom, as Eric Hoffer said, and one who is not. Those unfit for freedom do not have respect for the rights of others, and will use aggressive force (whether by themselves or through their government) to infringe upon others. Those fit for freedom understand and practice live and let live where there are differences.

The US is the most powerful nation in the history of earth, and our government is the playground bully menacing the small and weak all over the world.  Third-rate nations with no capacity to threaten the United States are portrayed as dangerous and a threat to the US, to justify an attack upon them.

Government attracts people unfit for freedom to its ranks, people who do not respect the individual rights of others and will use the force of government to push their beliefs on others, even if it means “cracking a few eggs to make an omelet” – killing off a few for the “better” of the whole.  They impose their ambitions on their own constituents with some restriction, just enough to keep themselves in office – but they impose their ambitions on people of other lands with wanton disregard for human liberty and aggression on a massive scale.

Being a government employee does not give one the right to commit acts of aggression against sovereign individuals, it doesn’t matter whether you’re just “following orders” or not. The simple fact is that those in military service are not protecting our freedom as the propaganda cries, but instead are carrying out the misdeeds of a murderous, imperialistic lot of criminals in government.

I believe in peaceful interaction with others, following the doctrine of win/win or no play. If two parties engage in mutually beneficial exchange, it’s a win/win relationship. If they’re just too different from one another, live and let live – go separate ways, no play. But when one party commits an act of aggression against another, I believe in responding to that aggression with a greater degree of force than that posed by the aggressor.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a position of strength, in fact, the best way to keep aggression away is to boldly and confidently portray strength, to be used in self-defense.  But if you’re using your great strength as an aggressor, those subject to aggression will retaliate.  A terrorist attack is just such a retaliation.  As long as the US Government is manipulating, controlling, and killing people around the world, expect more hatred toward the US, and more terrorist attacks as a result.