I just wanted to clarify something around principles of least possible necessary aggression that has concerned me ever since I started working with/on these principles. And that is around the propensity to rationalize any principle of governance to leverage for maximum force and aggression.
At least one of the reasons that power corrupts is that both more legitimate authority figures and those who use authority more wisely and less legitimate authority figures, power-players, and those who seek to use and abuse authority less wisely are constantly either leveraging for maximum possible use of force or being manipulated to do so or to move in a direction that is more in this direction.
In some ways, this may be or seem inescapable. The most important means of escaping this rationalization is to have a culture committed to as much freedom as possible, save those limited areas of governance that need more serious limits on freedom. The idea that there might be limits is not taken well by those who will rationalize their own freedom to limit the freedom of others as much as they would like, which is exactly why democratic institutions were developed: to check the power of those various groups and forces which might limit freedoms when such limitations serve the interests of some at the expense of a minority or individuals or other groups. James Madison's warning against factions is a wise one in Federalist Paper #10, not only because of the collection of interests to limit the freedoms and work against the interests of others or the common good for their own interests, but because it demonstrates the self-centeredness with which so much politics is engaged, including by political representatives, and the degree of skepticism that every citizen or individual should bring to limitations on their liberties, efforts to impose on their interests to serve the interests of others, and responsible engagement that is necessary that looks after common interests and common good to prevent such encroachments.
But no matter how much wise observers warn of this propensity to limit freedom for more narrow interests, including the narrow interest in limiting freedom for what is presumably peoples' own good without giving them final say over such matters - what many observers call the nanny-state propensity of government and what George Orwell more bluntly called Big Brother - people will now and likely into perpetuity try to limit freedom as far as they can and to use as much force and aggression as they can get away with to preserve self-righteous notions of the way the world should be (even if their use of force and aggression often makes that world they are critical of more likely than if they used less or no force or aggression; the alcohol prohibition is one such example of the use of force and aggression that made the world of alcohol, alcoholism, and the underground crime scene they became associated with far worse for the use of legislation and force rather than better).
So I want to clarify something.
The term least possible necessary aggression is not a tool of negotation. It is an objective reference to the amount of force that should always be presumed when force is needed and valuable. It is a flexible but objective ideal that will often and regularly not be met, I am sure. But it is an ideal that should guide our efforts to constantly be seeking out methods that respect freedom of individual conscience and judgment most and hurt others as least as is possible and only as is necessary.
It is a term of limitation, not a term of elastic negotiation so those who would cynically use it to squeeze as much justification for as much force as they would like or as much force or aggression out of those they have carry out their power grabs can manipulate this term as those same cynics and power-mongers and power-players persistently use terms like liberal, conservative, democratic, constitutional, moral, force, freedom, war and many other terms and who are persistently talking about the world in aggressive terms - aggressive efforts instead of vigorous efforts, attacks instead of criticism, offensive and defensive rather than engaged and a substantive discussion of issues and disagreement and many other ways that the press, in particular, feeds the much too aggressive and not nearly thoughtful enough instincts of political players and citizens' ideas about politics - and every term they can get their persistently intellectually dishonest and inconsistent hands on to justify as much force as they want to exercise at any particular moment.
I probably do it, as well, as a teacher and when I exercise authority. It's a propensity of authority and power that I am persistently keeping an eye out for and which I spend much time reflecting on and which I will use much time reflecting on this summer to reevaluate how I have used force and aggression to accomplish tasks I want accomplished. I likely fail and use more power and force than is necessary. And I will spend the rest of my life learning how to be as consistent as humanly possible with these principles.
Because the truth is that noone else has consistent principles that they use for matters of freedom and force that does much more than rationalize all of those place where they want to use force and as much force as they want to accomplish their ends, which generally undermines more responsible behavior, often unintentionally, counterproductively, and counterintuitively but nonetheless, in my study and experience.
Least possible necessary aggression does not need to be one more in a perpetual line of principles that is rationalized by various aggressors to use as much aggression as they see fit without genuine concern and attention to the purpose of these terms: to reduce aggression as much as honestly possible, not what is rationalized by the current, if often dismal reality. The Soviets or Nazis, for instance, could very easily cloak their ugly and power-corrupted behavior behind principles like least possible necessary aggression by persistently claiming that the amount of force they use is the least possible and necessary even if it very plainly is not. Propaganda has the advantage of not taking the truth seriously, and big lies and small lies, alike, are the tools of its trade which is exactly why a more honest, intelligent, scholarly and open marketplace of honest ideas and discussion is needed to be the only genuine reality check for this kind of manipulative use of words, ideas, arguments, images, and power that we have available to us. Worse, the propaganda of good people manipulating for what they believe or perceive or want to believe are good ends is subject to the same kinds of lying, big and small, distortions of perception and honest engagement, failure to more honestly engage those who disagree, failure to be responsible and genuinely accountable (meaning when someone holds themselves accountable; external accountability, by its nature, is not the most genuine form of accountability) to intellectually honest arguments and disagreement, can be more persuasive when people engaging that discussion believe they are doing so for good cause. Sometimes lying is very plainly for a good cause, as when Germans lie to hide Jews during the Holocaust to avoid the capture of Jews and the reach of Nuremberg law or when slaves or abolitionists lie to escape capture to avoid being held captive and the reach of federal, state, and local fugitive slave laws. But often lying for good causes becomes a dishonest habit of mind and engagement that both distorts the discussion and debate and makes honest engagement and judgments very difficult. It is this propensity that undermines efforts to have and nurture a more honest, reasonable and reason-respecting, decent, trustworthy, and otherwise better functioning liberal democratic society and all sorts of cultures, groups, organizations, familes, and other places where people need to function well together.
Least possible necessary aggression means what it says. The least possible necessary aggression is the only amount that should be used for any purpose that genuinely needs aggression or force, because no other means are either available, usable, or possible.
No aggression and force, at all, is always the least aggression and force that should be preferred. And all aggression should be genuinely accountable to that standard as much as is possible.
But liberal democratic people clearly need flexibility with the use of aggression and force. They need as much as they need and no more. They will take more. I can almost guarantee that. And the only genuine form of accountability for that fact is when people internalize the principle and the commitment to respecting people, their freedom, self-determination and self-governance as a matter of honest commitment rather than as a matter of external pressure, force, image-management or other forms of less honest means of being committed to principle.
People who are committed to being good people as a matter of fear or because of the threat or presence of force are not being good or moral or honest or decent honestly. They are doing so for reasons other than a genuine commitment to being good or moral or honest or decent.
Least possible necessary aggression works the same way. People who are less likely and willing to be good or moral or honest or decent honestly and not because of the threat or presence of external pressure or force, including myself when I am less honest with myself and others, are not likely to be committed to any principle, nevertheless some abstract principle of governance.
Our propensity to get more honest will only happen as we get more committed to honest embrace of this and any principle without fear of the threat or presence of force or aggression to make us internalize the principle. Everything else is just less honest, is the truth. People who reason as a matter out of external force and aggression are generally more self-righteous - in the literal, objective sense, meaning more likely to try to self-validate than to honestly consider alternatives including the likelihood that one is wrong - and just not very honest with themselves or others about their more honest motivations.
There is no magic way to make that problem go away. It will only wear away as force and aggression wear away as principles that are persistently used and abused for whatever causes people see fit. Like every other important matter that has ever faced liberal democratic peoples, this problem of power and its propensity to be abused, manipulated, and otherwise rationalized will be dealt with as we get more honest about it and as our consciences grow more genuinely aware and willing to face the problem.
One alternative is that someone will demonstrate to me why my arguments are wrong and why some other way of thinking about force or aggression should be preferred. I've not seen convincing arguments to the contrary. But I am open to such arguments.
In the meantime, everyone should be skeptical of the arguments of everyone who proposes to know best how to use force and aggression, including me and my arguments.
The tough part is that force and aggression are a natural and regular part of our lives while we are considering those ideas and arguments and squaring our consciences and thoughts with more realistic and genuinely ideal conceptions of how force and aggression should be used.
Meaning, we're going to make a lot of mistakes, no matter what we do. Not just around this principle, but around every principle we operate from in our lives. That alone should humble our sense that we should be out working to take everyone down for what we believe to be their mistakes. And that really is the rub and often the tragedy of it all. Too many people want freedom largely around their ability to take away the freedom of others. It is those mistakes which they perpetually rationalize that propensity to limit always-too-small sphere of freedom that individuals enjoy in a liberal democracy. Interdependence is an important and irrevocable part of modern, liberal democratic life. But genuine interdependence must genuinely respect genuine independence before it can become more genuinely interdependent. And that is an inescapable reality of modern, liberal democratic life, as well, whether the proponents of force to solve every problem want to face that reality or not.
That was the final undoing of both the Nazi and Soviet regimes. Nazis underestimated the need for independence and the commitment to free and democratic principles that liberal democratic peoples brought to their relationship with the Nazi regime and World War II. And the Soviets underestimated just how serious that same commitment was felt by both its satellite states and its own citizens, despite so many irrational impulses they all often brought to Soviet politics to the contrary.
The proponents of force, pressure, and aggression as a general governing philosophy are similarly underestimating the seriousness of the commitment to freedom and independence that free peoples will and do bring to this question currently. Free peoples can be cowered by a show of force for a time. But they always find the courage to fight, work, think, write, protest, and otherwise demonstrate that serious commitment to their freedom and independence.
And the most liberal democratic values and principles always will out in the end because they are the strongest values that humanity has yet developed.
And the brilliant thing about liberal democratic values is that insofar as they are lacking in their capacity to understand and deal with the challenges to those values that they regularly face, they have as a fundamental principle that gives the freedom and responsibility to those who would elaborate, expand, and otherwise improve upon those values and principles and understandings.
That principle cannot be accomplished by force. It can only be accomplished by freedom of responsible, engaged thought. And such responsible, engaged thought cannot take place in an environment where force is the primary philosophy of governance. So it must take place in the hearts, minds, and thoughts of those who care about those values more than do those who would otherwise cripple that capacity.
Someone will rationalize least possible necessary aggression to achieve ends that have nothing to do with an honest appreciation for these principles, I almost guarantee it.
And the only antidote to such abuse is for people who are more genuinely committed to liberal democratic values and the freedom that it is predicated upon to engage it honestly and to argue the more genuine case. Abuse of force can sometimes be checked with modest uses of force. And often, as with Al-Queda, for instance, where there is very little that seems negotiable or reconciliable in their ideology, much more substantial force is necessary to defend against attack.
I also happen to hold the now unpopular view that a war may have been the needed action to liberate Iraqis. The question for me was how to avoid the problems of Vietnam and a foreign army liberating an indigenous population that may identify more with its oppressors than with its liberators. I opposed the war, up front, because I thought this issue was far too serious to ignore and to not discuss and debate, up front, how a war in Iraq might be engaged to avoid the problems of Vietnam. I think collaborating with Iraqi opposition groups and their alligned militias, allowing them to lead an effort that we would back with overwhelming force and working closely with local, indigenous groups of Iraqis could have helped us undercut this insurgency, politically, where all of its political and, thus, military oxygen is derived. Without political support the insurgents have very little to fight for and very little psychological and material support for their efforts (the same would be true in Palestine if the Palestinian people would find the courage to give up their support of terrorist groups that clearly and objectively undermine their cause, their security, their culture, their economy and their day-to-day lives if they would find the courage to face that fact, that their support for terrorists is the single most important cause of the misery in Palestine, despite the admittedly miserable conditions also created by Israeli occupation). A more open-minded, open-hearted, open-ended debate and discussion about this war, up front, might have elicited ideas like this to avoid the problems we have experienced. I'm sure that there are many other very good ideas that thoughtful folks might have offered. But they never got much of a chance, is my point, because people got into a mad dash for action rather than taking thought and engaged differences and discussion more seriously.
Ultimately, all matters of the mind and heart are won or lost in and by minds and hearts, not by force. Force is a temporary fail-safe. It is not a sustainable means of persuading hearts and minds more honestly. And it is only that persuasion that can possibly sustain a genuine commitment to the principles and ideas that liberal democratic peoples or even peoples with less experience with liberal democratic values, like the Iraqi or Palestinian and all peoples, take seriously.
Love,
Ben
