What Is Evil?
William Stone, III, The Sierra Times, September 24, 2003

I'm always surprised that I have so few critics -- or even people who have disagreements. This is probably a testament to the fact that most of my readership are Zero Aggression Principle devotees, and that they are by definition extremely intelligent.

There are basically two kinds of critics: the kind who have a knee-jerk emotional reaction and are so angry that they can't string together a coherent sentence, and the kind who have a thoughtful disagreement. The people who write to me are uniformly of the latter kind.

I'm fond of quoting seminal libertarian author L. Neil Smith, who once observed that people who intentionally take actions that are demonstrably harmful to others are either stupid, insane, or evil -- possibly all three.

In "Professional Paranoid, Part III," I applied this principle to elected officials at the Federal level who support the "war" on terror (more correctly, the "War on Freedom").

I believe that in the main, stupid people do not get elected to Federal office. In addition, aside from a large dose of power madness and a smattering of personality disorders, "insanity" does not apply to most elected officials -- e.g., they understand perfectly well that their policies are actively harmful.

The only remaining explanation is that they're unspeakably evil.

The thoughtful disagreement directed to me was:

"That misses the biggest and most plausible category: they couldn't care less about the harmfulness of the policy, and ceasing to do the harm would hurt them (loss of votes, annoyed campaign contributors, vulnerability to being 'smeared' by the opposition, etc). That isn't proactive 'evil', just selfishness, ambition, and a lack of conscience."

To an extent, this is absolutely correct. However, it set me to thinking:

How does one define "evil"?

Traditionally, "evil" has all sorts of religious connotations. It is inextricably bound with consorting with Satan and other such trappings. If you're a religious individual and wish to adhere to this kind of definition, I've certainly no objection. However, it's not my definition.

I define all basic morality in terms of the Zero Aggression Principle, specifically:

"No human being has the right -- under ANY circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

Any activity that violates the ZAP is defined as "immoral." Any other action is "moral."

Does initiating force -- e.g. committing an immoral act -- make a person "evil"?

The Miriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com) definitions of "evil" that apply in this context are:

1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED

3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS

By either definition, violation of the Zero Aggression Principle can be categorized as evil. It is morally reprehensible to violate the ZAP, and to do so typically causes harm.

However, in modern society, "evil" has emotional content that goes well beyond the emotion evoked by "causing harm" or being "morally reprehensible." It invokes images of slavery, concentration camps, rape, murder, and so on. It is an appellation generally reserved for the most hideous and reprehensible activities.

The question, then, is: is the conduct of Federally-elected officials reprehensible enough to deserve the emotional connotation "evil"?

I would argue that it is.

Let's take, for example, the average Congressman. Not the stupid ones who do what they do because they don't know the harm it causes, nor the insane ones who cause harm because they believe wrong is right. Let's examine the AVERAGE Congressman, who engages in his behavior because he wants power and doesn't care what he has to do in order to get it.

On taking office, Congressman Average placed his hand on a Bible and swore the following sacred Oath to God:

"I, Joe Average, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Now, let's take a universal issue in which all Congressmen believe the Federal Government should be involved: education.

I invite one to examine the Constitution for language that authorizes the Federal Government to become involved in an individual's education. There is none. It is, under the Constitution, not the purview of the Federal Government. Therefore, should Congressman Average vote for any bill that allows the FedGov to become involved with education, he will be in willful violation of his Oath of Office. He will be explicitly undermining the Constitutional prohibition against FedGov involvement in unauthorized activities.

So on the first level, Congressman Average has violated a sacred vow made to God. I'm not a religious individual, but if you are, think of the implications of that for a moment. Violation of a sacred oath made to God is literally on the same level as, say, violating the sacrament of marriage. If you're religious, Congressman Average's vote to involve the FedGov in education is a sin, and Congressman Average is likely to burn in Hell for all eternity for his actions.

If you're a religious individual, would you consider a person who would violate a sacred oath made to God "evil"? And what if he violated this oath not just on that one issue, but on virtually every issue that came before him?

>From a religious perspective, our Congressmen are evil because of their repeated and willful violations of an oath made not to man, but to God.

However, like me, you might not be a religious individual. It might be that you simply consider violating a sacred oath something totally consistent with the way most Congressmen operate: hypocritical at best. Can we still consider Congressman Average evil?

We can. Firstly, there's the ZAP issue: by voting to authorize the FedGov to become involved in education, Congressman Average has delegated the initiation of force. He has violated the ZAP, because government cannot so much as lay one brick atop another without stealing the money necessary to do so.

And again, it isn't just education in which Congressman Average has initiated force. There is almost nothing he does that does not involve initiating force, either explicitly or through delegation.

>From the perspective of the ZAP, a repeated, unrepentant initiator of force can only be one thing: evil.

But suppose you're neither a ZAP devotee nor a Constitutionalist nor religious. Can Congressman Average still be considered "evil"?

Yes, he can. FedGov involvement in education is quite clearly detrimental to education. Since the FedGov first involved itself in education, nothing it has done has ever made education better or more effective. It does nothing but harm the minds in its charge. Frankly, ANY government involvement in education is demonstrably harmful, but none more so than Federal involvement.

So Congressman Average is explicitly causing harm to other individuals. He knows it. He doesn't care.

He's evil, any way you look at it.

In the words of my critic, Congressman Average (and every other Congressman now in office) is so selfish, ambitious, and lacking of conscience that he doesn't care who he has to hurt in order to stay in power. He doesn't care if millions of young minds are ruined forever, unable to read, write, or perform simple arithmetic as a direct result of his power madness. Worse, he KNOWS they're being hurt -- he just doesn't CARE.

Again, it isn't just education. The litany of Unconstitutional, immoral, and outright harmful activities undertaken by government fills the day of every Congressman. Harmful, immoral, Unconstitutional activities exclude everything resembling the moral, Constitutional work they've sworn to undertake.

They know it. They just don't care.

They're evil.

--------------------------------------
William Stone, III (pictured above) is a South Dakota-based computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP), security consultant (CISSP http://www.wrstone.com/services/contact.html), and Executive Director of the Zero Aggression Institute (http://www.0ap.org). He seeks the Libertarian Party's nomination in 2004 for United States Senate.

Apparently you feel that the Constitiution is the final arbiter of good v. evil. Even if I were to accept this, the Constitution as amended is extremely vague in some areas as to what is appropriate for federal involvement. Consider, for example the Ninth Amendment states that rights are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.

Education is essential to a productive, functional society. It is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition to progress of society. There is a distinct public good aspect to having an educated populace, so it is is quite appropriate for the government to involve itself in education.

Isn't it ironic that he believes in a "Zero Aggression Policy" yet poses next to a deer that he apparently killed. Was that in self-defense??

Interesting.

Yet it suffers form a very basic flaw...namely, not everyone buys it.

MUGGER: Gimme your wallet or I'll shoot you int he face!

ZAPper: No! You have no right to use force against me!

MUGGER: Really? BLAM! (Shoots ZAPper in the face and takes wallet anyway.)

Well, at least he died free of the taint of evil force...with his face blown off, admittedly, but free of the taint nonetheless.

ZAP, like all other pacifist beliefs, all forget to take into account that, for it to work, the cooperation of the entire human race is required.

In a world of pacifists, the man with an AK-47 is undisputed king.

...let me illustrate with another hypothetical.

You are walking down the street and glance into an alley.

A man is about to rape a 6-year-old-girl. He is seconds away from the act.

What do you do?

By the ZAP principle, it is immoral "...under ANY circumstances --to initiate force against another human being."

So...do you remain a moral being, and allow a heinous act to be committed? Or do you behave immorally and prevent a horrendous crime?

Me? I don't know if I'd kill the bastard...but he'd never again be equipped to rape anybody. And that would be the moral choice. To allow the rape to happen would be the evil act...not the use of force to prevent it.

I submit William Stone, III, needs to rework his silly principle.

IM SO FUCKING BAD AND
WILL PROTECT ANYONE
THATS WHY DURING THE IRAQ-AFGANISTAN
WAR
I SAT BEHIND A COMPUTER DESK IN SOME MOTORPOOL IN SOUTH CAROLINA

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS
FROMTHE REAR!!!!


IM A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND

He sneezed unexpectedly.