A recent article by LDSFreemen.com contributor Skyler Collins raises an important issue regarding the (seemingly) apparent contradiction between the “libertarian” non-aggression principle and the actions and commands of God, in particular the command from God to Nephi that he should kill Laban, found in 1 Nephi 4 in the Book of Mormon. Skyler’s article has prompted me to ask and answer the following question: “Do God’s commandments ever violate the libertarian non-aggression principle?”
The crucial importance of the answer to this question needs to be emphasized. If one can violate the non-aggression principle—and maintain actions which are moral and just by doing so—the “principle” becomes more of merely an idea or suggestion, thereby shedding much of its principle-like qualities. This puts the libertarian in danger and in search of a more sound philosophical position. Fortunately, as will be shown, the libertarian is in no such danger and the ostensible threat can be diagnosed as innocuous. The libertarian’s position is actually strengthened by showing that even God does not violate the non-aggression principle. Non-aggression can be properly thought of as merely the counterpart to agency.
Defining Libertarianism
Libertarians hold to the foundational principle that it is wrong to initiate force against another individual. It can be summed up as, “Keep your mitts to yourself,” or more eloquently known simply as the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This seemingly benign principle, similar to the bizarre implications of Einstein’s “simple” theory of special relativity, leads to all kinds of surprising—and sometimes disturbing—conclusions. For example, those who truly believe in the non-aggression principle must therefore be against the income tax, arguing that it is a form of slavery that should be abolished. Similarly, public education forces children to be removed from their parents, and thus violates the non-aggression principle. Another startling result is that there should be an end to laws that outlaw (currently illegal) drugs. Yet the libertarian holds fast to the non-aggression principle in an attempt to establish a political philosophy that provides a natural right to liberty and property, while upholding justice and conscience. The non-aggression principle and the right to private property are two sides of the libertarian gold coin.
Skyler’s Argument
Skyler’s article is an attempt to reconcile the apparent paradox between upholding the non-aggression principle while at the same time following God’s commands, even if His commands are in violation of the libertarian principle. Along this path, it is argued, the same reconciliation method and rationale could then be used to understand how the US Constitution and Federal Government were inspired by God and yet still be in contradiction to libertarian principle. Skyler’s argument can be understood by segregating libertarians into those (a) who have received a spiritual witness and (b) those who have not. Those who have received a witness of God are to allow for the possibility that “libertarian principle must take a back seat [to God’s will].” Skyler gives the example of Nephi’s killing of Laban as an illustration of how those with and without a spiritual witness would react. The unenlightened libertarian will afford Laban “due process” and a trial by jury, while the believing libertarian will apparently follow God and “sm[i]te off [Laban’s] head,” supposedly disregarding the non-aggression principle and submitting to a “higher” law.
There are many possible responses to Skyler’s article, which is why I believe he has brought up an important issue. Before I move on to my more specific critiques it is worth mentioning at least one item. The more general idea of God issuing a command and thereby designating the action commanded as good—or whether the command is issued because the action itself is good—goes back to Socrates and Plato. It is known as the Euthyphro dilemma, associated with the Theory of Divine Command. It essentially discusses the problems in answering the question, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” Skyler’s article could easily be analyzed according to whether one upholds divine command theory or not. This, however, would likely lead down an unfruitful path and is not, in my opinion, the optimal method of addressing the specific question I am attempting to answer.
My principal critiques of Skyler’s analysis are twofold: (1) the account of Nephi and Laban is not fully contextualized or related to other scriptures regarding this topic, and when properly contextualized it does not violate the non-aggression principle; (2) the leap from scriptures regarding God’s hand in establishing the US Constitution to the establishment of a Federal Government is unjustified and not supported by scripture. Since the latter falls more broadly under a myth that many (mainly American) Mormons believe, I will treat that topic more fully in a future article. For now I will focus solely on answering the former.
Contextualizing the Nephi/Laban Event
Regarding my first critique of the Nephi/Laban encounter, I refer the reader to a few remarks by Professor John W. Welch (additional articles treating this topic can be found here and here):
“. . . modern readers should be willing to consider not only the implications and moral bearings of ancient scriptural events upon contemporary society, but also to approach these developments in terms of the ancient dispositions and legal norms that would have operated as guiding principles in the lives of people years ago.
“. . . In its ancient legal context . . . the slaying of Laban makes sense, both legally and religiously, as an unpremeditated, undesired, divinely excusable, and justifiable killing—something very different from what people today normally think of as criminal homicide.” (Welch, John W. 1992. “Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 1/1, p. 119-141.)
Professor Welch’s research shows the importance of context and how, when properly understood, Nephi was justified in his act. Before supporting my response through scripture I would like to frame the section regarding Nephi in a reason vis-à-vis revelation analysis. The “reason” part would include the non-aggression principle while the revelation includes the command from God to Nephi. Does the revelation then violate the reason? Skyler may have included this statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith to buttress his argument:
“That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 256.)
The careless reader, without a proper exegesis of the Prophet’s statement, may glean from this that God’s decrees are arbitrary, or that future commandments could violate previous ones. A follower would then be on shaky ground, never sure of what commands to hold onto, not knowing which ones may change. This position, without careful analysis, appears to state that all is relative except the constancy of following whatever God decrees. In short, this is a rationalist’s nightmare. Yet, fortunately, Joseph Smith was only highlighting the intricacies involved in understanding and interpreting God’s revealed word, and of being receptive to revelation through the Holy Ghost. This, however, does not lead to the false dichotomy between reason and revelation—where “reason” takes a “back seat” to revelation. Joseph explicitly states we should follow revelation although later the reason will be shown to be right. The account of Nephi and Laban was not only warranted by revelation but also found to be based on reason, as demonstrated through the law that existed in Nephi’s day. Importantly, such laws did not contradict the non-aggression principle. It is actually, in a way, an illustration of libertarian principle. The non-aggression principle merely states that aggression cannot be initiated by an individual but that an individual can respond in self-defense, i.e., libertarians are not by definition pacifists. Professor Welch has, I believe, conclusively shown that Nephi was justified in killing Laban and was not initiating an act of aggression. Additional scriptural support will help to explain the law Nephi was following when he received the command from God to kill Laban.
The Law Given to Nephi
The legal and justice system of Nephi’s time actually appears to be more akin to libertarian legal theory than the current US system. Since Nephi no doubt included only some aspects of a very complex situation in his record, we can look for additional scriptures that more fully explain the law that Nephi was following, which is found in Doctrine and Covenants 98:23–36. Verse 32 makes this clear:
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.
And what was the law Nephi was given? First let us turn to verses 23-28, which point out the importance of the Christian idea of turning the other cheek, properly recognizing the justice of God (D&C 98:23–28):
23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.
25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.
26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;
27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.
28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
The above scriptures demonstrate the importance of not returning aggression to someone who has wrongly aggressed against you—even three times! This is to learn patience and not have revenge in one’s heart. The Lord even says we will be rewarded the fourth time if we so desire and do not seek revenge (D&C 98:29–30):
29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;
30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
However, we are also justified in “rewarding” our enemy “according to his works,” a restitution system that appears to be very libertarian. Verse 31 (D&C 98) provides the proper context and shows the law Nephi was following:
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified. (emphasis added)
In Doctrine and Covenants we find a fuller explanation of the law that Nephi was given. In other words—and in sharp contradiction to Skyler’s argument—Nephi was justified in his killing of Laban. This means that Nephi’s life and his family’s were not only endangered by Laban, but that they had been threatened by Laban at least three times previously. Nephi, knowing this law, was still reluctant to kill Laban. Yet he was not initiating an act of aggression. This is made very clear as indicated in D&C 98:31. Laban had initiated the act of aggression—not Nephi!
The Lord is even clearer regarding aggression on a grand scale, speaking of wars between nations (D&C 98:33–36):
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
These verses point out that the Lord approves of self-defense, but not aggression. If we make an offering of peace to someone who aggresses against us three times, then we are justified in defense and battle.
Conclusion
Despite the importance of Skyler’s article, my principle concern is that it too easily gives up the value and significance of the non-aggression principle; and the non-aggression principle of the libertarian cannot be dismissed so forthrightly. Scriptural examples abound regarding its eternal status and applicability. Indeed, the War in Heaven was fought to secure man’s eternal agency, the ability to choose and not be forced to choose by others. Nephi’s encounter with Laban is further proof of the importance of the non-aggression principle, and in no way contradictory when properly contextualized, both historically and through additional scripture. The non-aggression principle is the counterpart to agency, and thus cannot be contradicted, broken or abused by a Just God. In answering the question of whether God’s commands ever violate the libertarian principle of non-aggression the libertarian believer may resolutely answer: Absolutely not!
Wow, awesome article!