Do people have the right to harbor violent beliefs?

Do people have the right to believe in bad, violent things, such as forced sterilisation, slavery, and even mass murder?

In order to answer this question, let's define what a right is, in accordance with Natural Law principles: A Right is an action that, when taken, does not result in harm, suffering or loss to any other sentient being(s). I would go a step further and define a right as an action that does not violate the consent of other sentient beings, but let's stick with the original definition.

What about a belief; what is a belief? According to the online Oxford dictionary, a belief is "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof", or "something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion".

A right, then, is an action that does not cause harm to others, whereas a belief is a mental construct, an amalgamation of thoughts and ideas that may or may not be based in reality and may or may not be acted upon in this euclidean meat-space we call the physical world.

The implications of stating that people don't have the right to believe in violent things would necessitate physical force being used to thwart said violent beliefs from potentially manifesting in the physical world.

Let's take a look at some examples:

• "You do not have the right to commit murder": Physical force should be used to thwart any individual or group of individuals from threatening to commit murder (justified).

• "You do not have the right to commit theft": Physical force should be used to thwart any individual or group of individuals from threatening to commit theft (justified).

• "You do not have the right to rape": Physical force should be used to thwart any individual or group of individuals from threatening to commit rape (justified).

Let's apply the same logic to a violent belief, or belief system:

• "You do not have the right to believe in slavery": Physical force should be used to thwart any individual or group of individuals from believing in slavery so as to prevent it from potentially manifesting in the physical world (not justified).

Just because an individual or group of individuals say they believe in something, does not necessarily mean they are going to act upon those beliefs and violently enforce them in the real world.

Let's take a look at some more examples:

• Ron recently took a look at the local crime statistics which indicate that black people are responsible for most of the violent crime in his area. Ron believes his neighbourhood would be better off if all black people were incarcerated so as to reduce the violent crime in his area. Ron is not willing to physically act upon his beliefs, however, and has made no attempts to round up and incarcerate groups of black people. Ron might have a stupid, collectivist, racist belief system but using physical force against him would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

• Sally, 27, identifies as a 10th wave feminist and believes all men should be castrated so as to protect women and eliminate rape from society. Sally has not threatened to act upon her beliefs and hasn't, as of yet, physically castrated any men. Initiating physical force against Sally, when she has made no threats to act upon her beliefs, would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.

• Southern is a 22-year-old, right-wing political commentator who was bullied by Muslim immigrants in high school. After suffering years of abuse in high school, Southern believes that life would be better off if all Muslim immigrants in Canada were deported back to their homelands. Southern has not threatened to physically act upon her beliefs, however, and has not made any attempts to kidnap and deport local Muslims (Side note: Southern also believes 19 Muslim hijackers were responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Don't be like Southern).

To conclude: Given that belief IS NOT an action, but rather a mental construct and amalgamation of thoughts and ideas, the argument that one does not have the right to believe something is philosophically inconsistent with the Natural Law definition of a right action.

People have the right to think and believe what ever they want. People have a right to think violent, dark thoughts and believe in evil. Acting on those thoughts and manifesting them into physical reality is wrong, but people can, and will, think whatever they want. There are certain people, primary psychopaths, who think violent thoughts every day but do not act on them. You do not have a right to initiate force against someone because of their thoughts or beliefs. Thoughts and beliefs do not always manifest into physical reality.

(13-year-old Johnny has come to the understanding that it is always wrong to initiate force against non-aggressors, and has identified the state as the biggest aggressor and violator of human rights. Johnny has also come to the realisation that animals are sovereign beings and deserve to live in freedom. Johnny is a vegan and an anarchist, and his favourite catchphrase is "taxation is theft". Be like Johnny)