What does everyone, including you, want?

Avoid Aggression

Every human being, including you, wants to avoid aggression. No one wants to be harmed.

Aggression is the violation of your person or property. It’s criminal to impose things on people, rather than acquire consent.

  • A person might agree to a boxing match but reject being mugged
  • Masochists who can gain pleasure from pain nevertheless use “safe words” to limit the pain. They want to retain control over their person.
  • No one actually wants to be a victim of vandalism, fraud, robbery, rape, or murder.

Such victimization is a violation of your consent. And it’s self-evident that you don’t want to be a victim. And what is true of you is also true of others. Everyone wants to escape harm. And once you understand that, you realize why the Zero Aggression Principle is a primary rule of human interaction.

Perry Willis

About the Author

Perry Willis

Facebook Twitter Google+

Perry Willis is the co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and Downsize DC. He was the National Director of the Libertarian National Committee on two occasions, and ran two Libertarian Party presidential campaigns. He has an extensive background in marketing and fundraising, and has ghost written direct mail appeals for numerous luminaries, including Karl Hess, Ron Paul, Charlton Heston and Harry Browne.

Jim Babka

About the Author

Jim Babka

Facebook Twitter

Jim Babka is co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. He’s an author and former talk show host.
Previously, he was the President of RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., defending free press rights all the way to the Supreme Court. He and Susie are the proud, home-schooling parents of three teenagers. He enjoys theology, UFC, target practice, and Tai Chi.

Does this way of thinking intrigue you? Want to learn more or participate in creating such a society? Then join the Zero Aggression Project using this subscription form…

Subscribe form for Lever Pages


Show Comments 8


  1. Ahh, The idea that some women want to be raped will probably never die. I can tell you, there is a big difference between consentual sex and “being desired so much that you’re just TAKEN” like romance novels write about too much. Even though I love good sex like anyone else, I did not feel flattered or desired; I felt flat out used and tossed in the trash.

  2. People divide their lives into two parts, private (personal) and public (political). Private citizens share the ZAP as a moral code. Most public citizens (98%?) do not. They use duel moral codes. How do they justify this? When concepts conflict a psychological device called “compartmentalization” is present. It separates the two to avoid the pain of contradiction, which is hard-wired in most. This comes at a cost. The two concepts “bleed over” and cause inner confusion and pain, until identified and reconciled, if ever. Most live with this forever. It may result in growing compartmentalization in other areas, more pain. It is not healthy. It ignores pain by accepting it as if it were normal or unavoidable, which it isn’t, thus causing unneeded suffering.

  3. Excellent mental lever! I’ve been using it to help people choose not to kill their offspring by means of what is commonly referred to as abortion – a much better sounding euphemism than what that action really consists of, namely, a williful taking of another human being’s life without his, or more often her (being that sex selection is an important factor in that) life without express consent of the victim. Such action truly is a great example of a violation of consent if there ever was one. Deep in my heart I always knew, despite others claiming contrary views, that libertarianism and Christianity are wholly compatible once we think it all through!

  4. People make mistakes, as individuals and in groups. An individual or a group has no right to force their mistake on others. But they do. When a group does it, it is called democracy, .i.e., majority rule. This coercion is justified as necessary for the common good/security. But why is it moral to violate individual sovereignty, to replace it with group choice? Even if the dissenters are wrong, shouldn’t they be free to make their own choices, their own mistakes? How would we learn without free choice, without experimentation? The group or society could share a common delusion. How could that be exposed without freedom of choice? Coercive conformity to delusion is extremely destructive to the common good/security. It perpetuates delusion by disallowing dissent and alternatives.

    Coercive conformity to correct behavior is no better. It violates sovereignty in the name of “group sovereignty”, an extremely destructive erroneous concept that contradicts individual sovereignty, Either the individual is sovereign or the group is, either the individual has rights or the group does, but both cannot exist. Violate choice by force or fraud, if accepted as a valid social principle, and chaos reigns.

    This is the worldwide false principle that is worshiped blindly as it destroys humanity. This is why fools suffer under knaves. The majority refuses to let anyone break free and self-govern. It is viewed as dangerous and immoral. The opposite is true. It is life-enhancing and uplifting. It builds self-confidence and self-esteem.

  5. Alfie Evans’ sure could use these arguments to save their child, if the british courts were to listen, that is…
    Alas, this post of mine is going to get yanked off this web site as quick as the last one, I imagine, because pro-life views appear to be censored here…unless my previous comments were offensive to someone, though in that case I’d appreciate a rational exlpanation, or even any explanation from the moderatiors…

      1. Wasn’t talking about this comment, brother, I was referring to the initial comment I posted, before the current “first” post by Melanie was even there.

Leave a Comment:

Fields marked with * are required