What is the highest political value, or end?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
– John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, The History of Freedom
Yes, that’s my answer as well. Liberty. Now, that answer needs some explaining, because liberty is understood or developed very differently by different people.
“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” – George Bernard Shaw
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” – United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“Liberty," boomed Wednesday, as they walked to the car, "is a bitch who must be bedded on a mattress of corpses.” – Neil Gaiman, American Gods
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” – Mikhail Bakunin
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade...” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
And this:
“Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development because being able to choose one’s identity – who one is – without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices is important in leading a full life.” – United Nations Development Program
To further clarify my answer and use of the word: I have liberty in my person and in my justly acquired property. I have no unconditioned liberty beyond this; I have no right to encroach on another’s person and property without permission. In other words, liberty is conditioned by the non-aggression principle:
The non-aggression principle is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.
This raises a question, and a real point of confusion for many. Which is the highest political value: liberty or the non-aggression principle? Or, to put it another way, is libertarianism sufficient for liberty? Wait, I think I asked this question once before:
If liberty is the objective, is the non-aggression principle sufficient?
My conclusion:
Is libertarianism [the non-aggression principle] sufficient for liberty? Everything about man’s cultural and moral evolution answers with a resounding “no”; everything about how cooperative relationships are formed answers with a resounding “no.”
What is the objective? Is it to live lives of NAP purists and theoreticians, or is it to achieve liberty? Which is the higher political value? What if both cannot be achieved – which is preferred? Murray Rothbard opens his book, The Ethics of Liberty, with the following:
“All of my work has revolved around the central question of human liberty.”
The man who has written more about liberty and the non-aggression principle is clear that his objective is liberty, not the purification of the NAP.
Now, one will say, “without the NAP, you do not have liberty.” Fair enough. But what if with only the NAP I also do not have liberty? Also fair enough. What should I then aim for: liberty or the NAP?