Defining Aggressions, Harms, & Crimes in Anarchism
Many anarchists and libertarians who accept the non-aggression principle, AKA the NAP as the basic building block of a “libertarian”/anarchist society may use these 3 terms, “aggression,” “harm,” "and “crime” synonymously. However, I can see a distinct difference between the 3 of them, semantically speaking. An aggression, while perhaps a “harm” to one’s “rights,” isn’t always a physical harm to the person or their property requiring physical or monetary restitution. Therefore, I see a need to specify what a harm is, specifically in the anarchist world. For example, if someone points a gun at someone aggressively with no reason for it yet does not pull the trigger, there is an aggression, but there is no physical harm to the person/property, and thus there is no crime, especially if there was no intention to actually physically harm the other person (the aggressed). Same thing with trespass. If someone walks onto the property of another person without knowing it was their property, and with no intention of harming said property, then this could perhaps be termed an “aggression” but not a harm & definitely not a crime requiring restitution to be made. Even if someone walks onto the property of another person knowing full well it’s their property and the owner doesn’t want trespassers on it, this could be termed an “aggression” but like the previous example, there is no physical harm to the property, and thus no restitution can reasonably be demanded other than the person leave said property; nor would this be a crime in said libertarian/anarchist society because there is no physical harm. So, it seems like we need to specify what “aggression,” “harm,” and “crime” actually mean and how they relate to each other in a libertarian/anarchist society. In my view, it seems reasonable to define them in the following manner, at least as a starting point:
1.) an aggression: an actual unreasonable/unjustified, initial violation by one person against another person’s equal rights, or the clear, imminent threat thereof.
2.) a harm: physical damage to another human beings person and/or property requiring restitution to fix said physical damage done; (i.e.
3.) a crime: a clearly intended action consisting of the former 2 components, an aggression and a harm, in which restitution is required and possibly other measures to restore justice might be taken.
An aggression won’t always require restitution if there is no harm, while a harm will always require restitution. An intended harm would be a crime, while an unintended harm, due to negligence or simply pure accident is simply that, a harm. Harms are always aggressions as they violate other people’s equal rights, but not always crimes, as intent, or a “malicious mind” to commit the aggression and the harm is required to be considered a crime. Crimes will always require restitution in the least, and perhaps more, like say confiscation of property in order to pay said restitution, expulsion, or rarely, a brief period of separation from the rest of society in some kind of humane confinement zone, depending on the crime done…these types of judicial measures are beyond the scope of this discussion so they won’t be considered in great detail here.
Some examples:
1.) The example of aggressively (initially and unnecessarily, or perhaps even by mistake) pointing a gun at someone yet not pulling the trigger, or the simple act of trespass on their property. Aggressions are simply one’s equal rights being infringed upon, though there may or may not be a harm done, and if not, then there is no crime. The former examples would be aggressions, but not crimes as there is not physical harm done, regardless of intent.
2.) Now if someone aggressively pointed the gun & pulled the trigger and shot another person or their property, this would be an aggression, there is a harm, and it would also be a crime as the person intended the harm to be done.
3.) But what if Person A was in dangerous territory in the dark and saw an unknown figure, Person B approaching, also carrying a gun, though it was not raised, and Person A raises his gun on the shadowy Person B until person B comes into the light and sees Person B is a friend and lowers his/her weapon? This would still be an aggression, but since there is no harm, it would be simply that, an aggression, and since no (intentional) harm, no restitution can be demanded and it cannot be a crime.
4.) Now, what if Person A is out hunting game and sees movement, raises his/her gun and fires, shooting the moving thing, thinking it was the intended hunted animal but it turns out the movement was from Person B, who A did not know was there? Is this an aggression? Yes, Person B’s rights were infringed upon. Is there a harm? Yes, Person B was shot in the leg or arm. Can restitution to pay the medical bills & possibly a bit more to restore what Person B was unable to earn for an income due to being in the hospital be demanded? Yes, restitution is required. Is there a crime? No, as the harm was clearly not intended.
5.) The clearly thought out murder of Person B by Person A would be a crime and thus higher levels of “criminal (monetary) restitution” could possibly be demanded or possibly other judicial measures taken by the victim’s family etc. toward the aggressing criminal. Again, what these measures might be is not of relevance here.
6.) Say someone accidentally hit another person’s vehicle with their own and damaged it; this would be an aggression and a harm, but not a crime as intent was non-existent. Restitution to fix the damage would be required, but additional “criminal restitution” beyond the mere fixing the damage could not be demanded/required as there is no crime.
If anything, the word “crime” might not be necessary in an anarchist society built of libertarian principles of the NAP, and “aggression” and “harm” alone might suffice. It depends on whether or not one believes anarchist societies can demand & impose criminal restitution (monetary or otherwise) beyond mere fixing the damage done in the harm. But one thing is for certain: we should be careful not to use these three terms, “aggression,” “harm,” and “crime” interchangeably as they are not entirely and purely synonymous and can and should carrying different meanings in describing “judicial issues” in an anarchist societies built on libertarian principles.