CHAPTER 1
THE GOLDEN RULE

The Principle of Non-Aggression

As children relating to others, we learned a great deal about creating peace and prosperity. Most of us can remember Mom or Dad prying us apart from a playmate after we came to blows. "Who started it?" often determined who received the most severe punishment. Even at a tender age, we could see that if no one hit first, no fight was possible. We contributed to keeping the peace by making sure we did not deliver that first blow. This approach frequently required controlling our reactions to others. No longer did we feed them knuckle sandwiches just because their clothes were "weird." We refrained from using our weaker playmates and siblings as personal punching bags. We became tolerant of the harmless actions and attributes of others. This tolerance extended to the property of our playmates as well. Taking or damaging their toys without their permission counted as "starting it." Lying to or about them also set the stage for mortal combat. Consequently, our commitment to keeping the peace required us not only to be tolerant, but also to be honest with others and to respect property that was legitimately theirs. We refrained from threatening "first strike" force, theft, and fraud. This was our first step in bringing peace to our own tiny corner of the galaxy.

The second step was just as important. If we struck others, took their toys, or lied about them, we tried to repair the damage we had done. We replaced the damaged toy out of our meager allowance, perhaps purchasing one just a little better to make up for the distress we had caused. We advised those who had heard our lies that we had misinformed them. We carried books for the playmate whose arm we had bruised. By restoring the balance that we had upset, we hoped to diffuse the tension our actions had generated. Our program for peace, therefore, had two parts: (1) honesty, tolerance, and respect toward others and their property (i.e., refraining from threatening first-strike force, theft, or fraud); and (2) repairing any damage we had caused. We will refer to this dual approach of honoring our neighbor's choice and righting our wrongs as the practice of "non-aggression."

As we became adults, our playmates became our neighbors. The degree of tranquillity in our community depended on how many of us practiced the principles of non-aggression learned in childhood. Property values tended to parallel the peace. Where theft and fighting were rampant, property values plummeted. We learned that prosperity is possible only when aggression is the exception, not the rule. Our immediate experience suggests that the way to a peaceful and prosperous world is to practice non-aggression and to encourage others to do the same.

On a one-to-one basis, we do exactly that. We would never steal from our next door neighbor, whom we'll generically refer to as "George." As adults, we feel no more entitled to his car and money than we did to his toys when we were kids. We practice non-aggression by respecting property that is legitimately his. Maybe George likes to wear things we wouldn't be caught dead in, but we wouldn't take a swing at him just because he doesn't conform to our standards. We practice non-aggression by being tolerant. If George doesn't contribute to our favorite charity, we wouldn't tell him his donation was going elsewhere just to get it. We practice non-aggression when we deal honestly. If we accidentally damaged George's property or person, we'd make it right again. We practice non-aggression by repairing any damage that we have caused.

We wouldn't join or hire a gang of our neighbors who wanted to steal from George, hurt him physically, or deceive him. If George had an encounter with such a gang, he would probably retaliate, perhaps with a gang of his own. The cycle could repeat itself indefinitely. Aggression begets aggression, and those in-volved alternate as victims and aggressors. "Starting it" is a prescription for neighborhood warfare, with a loss of both peace and prosperity. We practice non-aggression by saying "no" when others ask us to use aggression against another individual or group. Because we practice non-aggression naturally when dealing with our neighbors, it seems that selfish others must be responsible for aggression and the war and poverty it begets.

Knowing Ourselves

Before we absolve ourselves of responsibility for the world's woes, let us look more closely. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram at Yale University conducted a series of studies to determine if gentle, considerate, everyday people could be persuaded not forced to hurt their fellow human beings. In one study, the scientist-experimenter strapped himself in a chair that was supposed to deliver electrical shocks of increasing severity to be administered to him by a naive volunteer. Whenever the scientist failed to learn a series of word pairs properly, the volunteer was supposed to shock him, using a higher voltage each time. A male experimenter went "undercover" and pretended to be a second volunteer.

The scientist did not actually receive any shocks; he was only pretending. The naive volunteers did not know this, because each of them had received a very real, low-voltage test shock as a demonstration. When the shocks reached a third of the maximum level, the scientist cried out that he could take no more and the experiment should end. The undercover volunteer tried to convince the real one that the experiment should continue. However, in every one of the 20 tests, the naive volunteers refused to keep shocking the experimenter. Apparently, the average person could not be convinced by a peer to force the scientist to continue against his will. (1)

In another study, however, the results were very different. The two experimenters switched places so that the scientist stood beside the naive volunteer and shocks were administered to the undercover one. When the "victim" cried out at one-third the maximum voltage, only 20% of the naive volunteers withdrew from the experiment. The others, at the insistence of the scientist, continued. At two-thirds maximum voltage, the victim cried out that he had a heart problem and feared for his life. Another 15% of the naive volunteers refused to continue, even though the scientist claimed that the shocks weren't severe enough to cause permanent damage. A full 65% of the volunteers continued to shock the victim even after he made no other sounds. Because the victim was hidden in a nearby room, some of the volunteers feared he might be unconscious and were extremely concerned for his safety. Yet, at the insistence of the scientist, they continued to shock him until they had administered the highest voltage three full times! (2)

The scientist didn't need to force the volunteers at gunpoint; only verbal commands were required. Even when the volunteers feared for the safety, even the life, of the victim, they were willing to proceed as long as an authority figure, but not a peer, urged them to.

When the naive volunteers were interviewed afterward, certain trends emerged. The 20% who refused to continue as soon as the victim wanted to quit felt that they were responsible for shocking him. Administering the shocks was acceptable only if the victim agreed to it. They obviously believed in honoring their neighbor's choice_regardless of what anyone else told them to do. Those who continued shocking the victim were more likely to place the responsibility for his pain on the shoulders of the scientist or the victim himself for being a slow learner. Yet they surrendered their responsibility only when an authority figure, the scientist (second study), not a peer (first study), urged them to. A typical comment made by the volunteers was "I was just doing what I was told." (3) Similar statements have been made by those who executed Jews in the Nazi concentration camps in World War II or massacred women and children at My Lai in Vietnam.

We defer to authority figures because they are supposed to know more than we do. If a mistake is made, it's easy to lay the blame at their feet. Ultimately, however, we are responsible for choosing the authority figure we defer to. Choosing to defer to one who urges aggression against others still puts the responsibility on us.

Each of us would like to believe that we would be in the small group that refused to be persuaded by the authority figure to go on shocking the victim. When Milgram surveyed people who were unaware of the results to predict where they would stop, none believed they would go past two-thirds of maximum shock. (4) Clearly, what we believe we would do and what we actually would do are quite different.

We believe that we consistently practice non-aggression and that selfish others must be responsible for war and poverty. Milgram's studies teach us that our words and actions don't always match and that we can be unaware of this discrepancy. If we truly wish to help our world, we must first identify ways in which we may be causing the problem. Let us examine an instance of common, everyday aggression and see how we respond.

How We Violate the Principle of Non-Aggression Daily Without Even Realizing It!

If we decided we wanted a new neighborhood park, how would we go about getting one? We could call together other individuals who want the same thing and could raise enough money to own and operate the park through donations, by selling stock in a corporation set up for that purpose, or through other voluntary means. If those who did not participate in the fundraising effort decide later to use the park, we might require them to pay an entry fee. Obviously, we would be relating voluntarily and non-aggressively with our neighbors. If George didn't want to be involved as either a contributor or a park visitor, we would honor his choice.

Of course, another way we could proceed would be to vote for a tax to purchase and maintain the park. If a large enough gang of our neighbors voted for it, George's hard-earned dollars would be used for a park he didn't want and wouldn't use. If he refused to pay what our gang dictated, law enforcement agents, acting on behalf of the winning voters, would extract the tax, at gunpoint, if necessary. If he resisted too vehemently, George might even get killed in the scuffle.

Wouldn't we be using a gang called "government" to steal from George? Wouldn't we be the first ones to turn guns on a neighbor who hadn't defrauded or stolen from us? Wouldn't George eventually retaliate by getting government to turn its guns on us for projects that he prefers but we want nothing to do with? Wouldn't we alternate as victims and aggressors, as minorities and majorities? Wouldn't we just be taking turns directing the law enforcement agents toward each other?

Through taxation, pacifists are forced at gunpoint to pay for killing machines; vegetarians are forced at gunpoint to subsidize grazing land for cattle; nonsmokers are forced at gunpoint to support both the production of tobacco and the research to counter its impact on health. These minorities are the victims, not the initiators of aggression. Their only crime is not agreeing with the priorities of the majority. Taxation appears to be more than theft; it is intolerance for the preferences and even the moral viewpoints of our neighbors. Through taxation we forcibly impose our will on others in an attempt to control theirchoices.

As individuals, we may not support taxation and other forms of aggression-through-government. However, the composite of our separate views, as reflected in our laws, indicates that as a nation, as a society, as a collective consciousness, we believe that aggression serves us. As we'll see in the next few chapters, just the opposite is true. Aggression creates poverty and strife in our city, state, and nation just as surely as it does in our neighborhood.

How could it be otherwise? Aggression could hardly produce peace and plenty simply because we use it as a gang instead of as individuals. Using the same means brings us the same ends. It's as plain as the nose on our face and just as difficult to see! Only by looking at what is reflected back to us can we observe it.

Indeed, taxation and other forms of aggression-through-government are so taken for granted in our culture that one of our most popular sayings is that "nothing is certain except death and taxes." Yet slavery was once as universal. Taxation is thought to be indispensable to civilization today, just as slavery once was. Advocates of taxation claim that since most people pay assigned taxes before the guns show up, they have implicitly agreed to it as the price of living in "society." Most slaves obeyed their master before he got out the whip, yet we would hardly argue that this constituted agreement to their servitude. Today, we have an enlightened perspective on slavery, just as one day we will have an enlightened perspective on taxes and other forms of aggression we now think of as "the only way."

Just as our ancestors rationalized slavery, we've created the illusion that taxation is legitimate. Like the volunteers who continued to shock the victim at the insistence of the scientist, we feel our actions are justified, perhaps even noble. We believe that we can create a world of peace and plenty if we are given a free hand to force those selfish others to do things our way. We feel taxation is indispensable for certain necessities (e.g., defense, clean air and water, helping the poor, etc.). Instead, as the following chapters illustrate, aggression in any form only hurts others and ourselves. We reap as we have sown.

In Part II (Forgive Us Our Trespasses: How We Create Poverty in a World of Plenty), we'll see how our well-meaning aggression has created poverty, compromised our health, destroyed our environment, and fostered monopolies and cartels that manipulate us. Special interests chuckle at our naivete as they use our fears of selfish others to pit us against each other for their benefit. In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled.

Having seen the folly of using aggression ourselves, Part III (As We Forgive Those Who Trespass Against Us: How We Create Strife in a World of Harmony) details a better way to deal with those who trespass against us. This "other piece of the puzzle" gives us power to create peace and plenty in our communities, our nation, and the world. First, however, we must take responsibility for the acts of aggression that we unwittingly commit. Like the volunteers who refused to shock the victim at the whim of the authority figure, we too must first honor our neighbor's choice. Only when we are innocent of aggression can we deal effectively with those who are guilty of it.

Aggression hides in our culture under many names. Taxation is only an example, but one of the most widespread and uneconomical. If this concept seems incredible to you, consider the shift in awareness that it implies. Are we like children, accepting five pennies for our dime?

Thou shalt not kill... Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet...anything that is thy neighbor's.

- THE HOLY BIBLE, Exodus 20:13-17

Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical problem is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.

- Ayn Rand, author of ATLAS SHRUGGED

He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one-fifth to it and give it to the person that he has wronged.

- THE HOLY BIBLE, Numbers 5:7

 ...civilization means, above all, an unwillingness to inflict unnecessary pain... those of us who heedlessly accept the commands of authority cannot yet claim to be civilized men.

- Harold J. Laski, THE DANGERS OF OBEDIENCE

In growing up, the normal individual has learned to check the expression of aggressive impulses. But the culture has failed, almost entirely, in inculcating internal controls on actions that have their origin in authority. For this reason, the latter constitutes a far greater danger to human survival.

- Stanley Milgram, OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.

- Mahatma Gandhi, father of modern non-violent resistance.

How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people.

- Walter Williams, ALL IT TAKES IS GUTS

A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort... is not strictly speaking a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang rule.

- Ayn Rand, THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS

...while men usually recognize criminal acts when they are committed by an individual in the name of his own interest, they often fail to recognize the very same acts for what they are when they are committed by some large gang in the name of "social justice" or the "common good."

- Jarrett Wollstein, SOCIETY WITHOUT COERCION

...we are living in a sick Society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them.

- William L. Comer, AVOIDING THE HIGH COST OF DYING (AND MANY OTHER FINANCIAL DILEMMAS)

...the moral and the practical are not in conflict, provided one knows what is, in fact, moral.

- Nathaniel Branden, JUDGMENT DAY