If you have been on any form of social media in the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency, you may have noticed what you think is an insurgence of vocal hate groups in the United States. While it does ring true that these creatures have become more vocal, there is not a sufficient amount of evidence that supports the claim that White Nationalist, or neo-Nazis, have actually grown in numbers.
While conducting a Google search, you may have to sift through the foundationless claims made by BBC, The Guardian, and The Atlantic, once coming across the Southern Poverty Law Center, you find the facts. Hate groups are not on the rise, they have grown more vocal and changed their face and social media presence but their numbers have failed to be impacted by their new-found "marketing" approach. The vast majority of Americans still believe in equality for their fellow citizen, even the people that voted for President Trump. You read that correctly, I am not a Trump supporter but I don't have to be one to sympathize with the millions of people that are called "racists" and "Nazis" for sharing their political beliefs. In the same respect that I can sympathize with millions of democrats that are called "commies" and "shrills."
As a Libertarian, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the corner-stone of my belief system. The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. This means that when I joined the Libertarian Party, I vowed I wouldn't initiate force unless myself or my property was harmed.
What does this mean when you are out on the town and happen across a Nazi, KKK, or other White Supremacist rally? Is the Appropriate response to engage in their conversation? Punch them in their back-wards thinking, hate spewing mouths? Do you just fight the battle and shoot them on sight? We have all seen the memes calling for "1000 Nazi Scalps" using the picture of Brad Pitt from Inglourious Basterds. To understand what the appropriate response should be, we first need to delve into the issue of whether or not Nazi rhetoric is in violation of the NAP and warrants the use of physical action. Upon first glance, the obvious answer is a solid "no." However, the argument can be made that whenever a skinhead adorns his body with a swastika tattoo, he is making the claim that, if given the chance, he will murder the people that do not fit inside his world-view. in MY world-view, the threat of force warrants the use of force. That is the reasoning that makes this issue so much more than a black and white, clean-cut, situation. I want people like Richard Spencer and Rocky Suhayda to have the right to their beliefs, as well as the right to talk about those beliefs. On the other side of the coin, I don't believe that they have the right to threaten the mass-murder of millions of Americans. I'm sure that everyone has their own opinions of the issue, or some may believe that the NAP simply doesn't apply to those that hold a White Supremacist ideology.
In conclusion, My own ideas are challenged at this issue. I have thought long and hard about this issue and have come to realize that Rallies like the one held in Charlottesville, VA are protected by the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. These imbeciles can chant and rally and they are protected by our Constitution. Ridicule and dis-proving their intellect will have a much greater effect of them than anything that a fist can do, their entire purpose is to rally the emotions of the people who hear them. I'll stick with using my words to belittle their belief system, until I see a direct threat to the freedoms of American Citizens.
- Dakota Davis email@example.com