Should zero aggression always be your starting point?

We don’t go around clubbing people on the head

When you’re trying to solve problems in your personal life, which do you do first, look for a violent solution or a peaceful one? Most people forgo the violent approach…

Except when it comes to politics. Then, they’re desperate to find excuses for State aggression. They want a “law” that will impose their personal preferences on other people. The reverse should be true.

You should be zealous to find ways to solve problems without aggression. Don’t look for excuses to use aggression. Look constantly for ways to forego it. Let your every instinct that “there ought to be a law” serve as a warning that you have probably skipped a step. Did you really exhaust all of the non-violent possibilities first?

Take it one step further. If you’re absolutely convinced that state aggression is necessary, be zealous to limit that aggression as much as possible.

Jim Babka

About the Author

Jim Babka

Facebook Twitter

Jim Babka is co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and President of, Inc. He’s an author and former talk show host.
Previously, he was the President of, 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.

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.

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 2


  1. One year into the Trump Administration it is painfully obvious that coercive powers become very harmful when the wrong people use them. But defining who the “Wrong People” are, has proven impossible. Clintonian pragmatism defined Getting Things Done as the be-all and end-all of politics. Donald Trump ran on a Getting Things Done platform, but with a populist edge to it. Dissatisfaction continues rising in many communities, because this emphasis on Getting Things Done has gotten done a lot of harmful things, while holding very little discussion about what would actually be helpful instead of harmful.

    We’re living in a unique time period, when many people would be open to this message, that working to understand problems should take priority, over using force to re-shape a problem and fracture it into multiple problems.

  2. “One year into the Trump Administration it is painfully obvious that coercive powers become very harmful when the wrong people use them.”
    So, it wasn’t painfully obvious one year into Obama “bake my cake or die” administration, or any other administration we had since, oh, i don’t know, Calvin Coolidge?
    I wonder if you really see initiated force itself as a bad thing altogether, or simply disapprove of it temporarily because of who’s in office while suffering from “Orange Man Bad” syndrome?
    And to think Coolidge wan’t even elected…so much for “democratic process” yielding better results 😉

Leave a Comment:

Fields marked with * are required