As many of you may know by now, I am a supporter of voluntary and consensual interactions, exchanges, and relationships between individuals, and I believe initiating the use of force and coercion against others is unethical. If that sounds too abstract and wordy for you, I’m just saying, let’s universalize the ethics we learned in kindergarten: Don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff. I hear a lot of folks that say they agree with that, yet they still go out and vote and support the State (government). That is a contradiction.
Most people appear to oppose any initiation of threats and coercion against others when it happens in daily local interactions with each other, such as when we exchange money for groceries, or when we buy a weed whacker from a stranger on Craigslist, or when we go hiking and people on the trail help each other upon their own volition. Some are even overly nice, like pretend nice. Most people try to avoid the stress and risk of confrontations on an individual level whenever possible. In all our individual interactions with others, we (except for the sociopaths) generally help others voluntarily, and defend others (even strangers) when someone is initiating force or aggression against them. But for some reason, when we expand those principles into the larger stratosphere of society, the ethics become reversed, and somehow, magically, we mistakenly think there are some humans that have a “right” to rule and initiate force against others.
For example; If a politician puts a gun to someones head and takes $5,000 from some guy, he is seen as a criminal. If that same politician along with his fellow politicians imposes a “tax” of $5,000 that applies to the same guy, it’s seen as legitimate, and even patriotic.
What’s worse is the IRS demands that you do the calculations according to the “tax code” to figure out how much they will steal from you, and then repeat that complicated process annually. The thug on the street with saggy pants doesn’t even go that far, he justs robs you and you’ll probably never see him again.
If you choose not to pay your federal income tax, and instead, you take that money and gave it to some legitimately good charities and voluntary community organizations that help society, you would still be condemned by others for your “criminal tax evasion”. This is because the pride and honor expressed by taxpayers doesn’t come from actually helping society, it comes from taking pride in being obedient to arbitrary authority.
It’s the same behavior that used to happen on slave plantations, any slave that wanted to escape and be free was obstructed not just by the master, but by his fellow slaves that had accepted being enslaved and took pride in being obedient to the master.
As Frederick Douglass described, many of his fellow slaves on the plantation were proud of how hard they worked for their masters and how they faithfully obeyed orders. Any slave that wanted to run away was labeled a shameful selfish thief, stealing himself away from the master. Another hero in history, Harriet Tubman wrote; “I freed a thousand of slaves, and I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” Will we ever break free from that slave mentality of obedience? Do you prefer the freedom of voluntarily, peaceful interactions, or do you take pride in keeping you and your fellow human beings in obedient servitude?
Of course, direct taxation is a small fraction of how the Fed plunders your pocketbook. They steal the tasty fruits of your labor in other ways by printing (digitizing) money, which dilutes the value of the currency, and they borrow more money on the future labor of the unborn. When you don’t feel the direct blow of theft, you don’t fight it as much, but how does it feel to tell your kid that he was born into indentured servitude without hope of a payoff? And by voting, you are showing your support for this appalling theft. No matter what politician you vote for, you will have the spoils of your productivity stolen from you either way.
Would you personally grab a gun and go to your neighbor and say “Give me a chunk of your money every year, or I’ll restrict you from owning and living in your home.” Even if you spent that stolen money on helping others in society, you would still identify it as theft, extortion, and racketeering, right? When the same act is done “legally” and the homeowner refuses to have his property stolen from him when it’s called “property tax”, people will show shame and disdain for him, and he will be labeled as a greedy tax cheat who refuses to pay his “fair share”(whatever that is).
Would you be fine with recruiting a street gang to pillage from your friendly neighbors in order to pay for your kids schooling? Those that support the State advocate the same act when they vote to support property taxes to fund State schooling institutions.
What is armed robbery in one context is then considered legitimate taxation in another context, even though it’s the same immoral act. Not only is the slick politician viewed as a moral representative of the people, but the “tax cheat” that doesn’t want his property stolen from him is considered the criminal. It’s completely backwards and insane.
Another example would be, if a politician hired trigger happy thugs to invade someone’s home down the street, shoot the guys golden retriever, kidnap him and lock him in a cage for consuming or possessing some forms of medicine or recreational substances, that politician would be accused of a shameful and criminal act. But when a group of legislators make up arbitrary laws that restrict others from having certain substances, and those “laws” are enforced in the same manner as mentioned before, it somehow is magically justified and the public views it as “keeping the population safe.” Folks feel no shame or guilt knowing harmless and peaceful people are forcibly separated from their families, and locked in a cage, getting raped, sometimes for the rest of their lives. What’s even more sickening is that the money to pay for the enforcers, guns, and cages is all stolen from peaceful and productive individuals.
Democracy
Some folks say “democracy” is what makes it justifiable. But “democracy” is just tyranny of the majority ruling over the minority, commits the ad populum fallacy, and is a violation of individual self-ownership, therefore democracy is invalid and immoral. If there are three people on an island, would democracy be valid? If two guys and a hot girl on a tropical island democratically vote to determine if the guys should have the right to perform coital activities on the girl without her consent, or if the majority decides who gets to tax whom, does that make it valid even though it’s only 3 people? What if it’s 10 voters? What if it’s 100 million voters, if enough people vote for a tax (theft), or pre-arranged marriages (possibility of rape if one party doesn’t consent), or anything, does it make it valid or right? Of course not. When you talk politics with your neighbor or Facebook friend, arguing about who to vote for in a democratic election, you are essentially bickering over which slave master you want holding the whip, and you’re arguing over what the master will allow you to do if you beg and plead.
Outsourcing personal accountability
A small (and shrinking) number of vintage conservative Christians still don’t accept homosexuality, and they vote for representatives to make and enforce “laws” that would restrict marriage and certain actions from being done by gays. If those laws are violated, the enforcers will use varying degrees of violence, and if there is no compliance, the guns come out. I wonder if these same conservatives would enforce these restrictions upon their own volition as individuals rather than having a third party do the dirty work. Does supporting a third party to initiate this violence on your behalf make it justifiable and moral?
It’s also confusing how many in the gay community that want the government to be involved in all aspects of everyones lives, support the largest organization that is completely capable and willing to restrict the actions of people based upon their sexual preference. It’s a bit like being a vegetarian and eating at Outback Steakhouse for every meal, hoping they will change the menu. How about just not being involved with the steakhouse. Or it’s like being a black guy and being totally immersed in the activities of the KKK and trying to reform it. Here’s a little secret; “Gay Rights, privileges, and restrictions” and cannot be legitimately granted or taken away by a group of other humans, even if they call themselves “government.” And begging a group of humans by voting is giving them fake legitimacy in their actions. Man made laws, rights, and restrictions “granted by, and originating from” politicians, are just opinions enforced by violence.
Somehow, when any act of enforcement via violence are solicited by a politician in a campaign speech, the polished politician will sugar coat the terminology to make is sound abstract such as “it’s the will of the people” or “it’s for the greater good” and magically that which is immoral becomes virtuous and charitable. When the politician proposes funding for the State schooling system, infrastructure, helping those in need, etc., he is literally talking about stealing money from people and spending that stolen money in a manner that he thinks is better. This act is perceived as immoral in our personal lives, but when the act is done by these somehow supernatural, anointed, angelic humans that inhabit the government organization that is reinforced by the cult-like worshipers of the deity they call the government, it is perceived as necessary and noble.
Those who support having political rulers or representatives for everyone, have a knee-jerk reaction to making sure a third party initiates force against the very individuals they claim to care about. They usually justify this endorsement of force by buying into the fallacy of good intentions that the political rulers put forth. Of course, good intentions are very different from good results in the political realm.
Obedience cloaks the violence
But Jeremy, “The government, and agents of the government aren’t running around with guns initiating violence, they usually leave us alone.” I hear you, but just ask yourself what would happen if you were a peaceful individual who respects the property and sovereignty of other individuals, and you choose to use a medium of exchange other than the pretend fiat monopoly money (U.S. dollar), and you refuse to have the fruits of your labor (that are rightfully yours by nature) stolen from you without your consent? What if you know of a better way educate your children rather than sending them off to the compulsory State conformity institutions, and you choose not to support that system. What if you know of a better, more efficient, high quality, low cost way to help the sick, elderly, and poor than the disastrous and monopolistic, and sometimes required programs like medical care acts, medicare, social security, minimum wage laws, and welfare, etc. What would happen if you didn’t subscribe to these and many more centrally planned collective disasters, while still living peacefully, and not violating the property of any other individual? Would they leave you alone, or would you start getting letters of compliance, and knocks on the door from agents of the State? And if you still didn’t comply, they would come to steal that which is rightfully your property. If you continue to refuse to have it stolen from you, they would bring out the guns and kidnap you, and lock you in a cage. If you refuse to go in the cage and let them steal your property, they will shoot you. But no, you’re right, they pretty much leave us alone, because we prefer complaisance over death.
If you have a tasty chocolate cake, and I tell you to give me the cake or else I will slash your car tires, and you give me the cake to protect your car tires, was that an act violence and coercion even though I never actually slashed your car tires? Yes it is.
You see, it’s our obedience to the arbitrary laws of the control freaks in the ruling class that mask the violence and coercion. What do you suppose would happen if we eventually became aware of the violence, and then no longer accept the fallacy that subjective “authority” is valid?
If the IRS had to do the calculations instead of you and your accountant, and then directly steal your money, would you still be obedient to them? If enough slaves on the plantation refused to obey the master and not work, would there be a slave trade after that? Someday when we see the relationship we have with the State, and understand that they just use happier words to describe the harassment, surveillance, extortion, theft, assault, kidnapping, etc. that they use to control you, will you still be obedient to them? You see, it’s our obedience to their artificial right to initiate violence that keeps them in a position of power over us. If we stop promoting them with our vote, stop the blind obedience to them, and stop acknowledging that their authority as being legitimate, tyranny will crumble.
Do you fear what it may be like to be free?
So if you support the protection of individual self-ownership, you cannot support those (government) that initiate force against other individuals. “But Jeremy, It would be chaos without the government.” I have heard that a lot, but no one seems to know how it would lead to chaos. Self-governance based on recognizing and defending universal natural principles of protecting individual property rights, equal self-ownership, and not initiating aggression against others leads to peace and order. When those principles are not recognized, it leads to chaos. Government, by definition, is a violation of these principles.
When folks in pre-America times advocated a free market, people said it would be chaos. Who is going to set prices? How will anyone know what to produce, and how much to supply with no rulers to decide these things? Of course, the free-ish market that emerged in early America was the least chaotic, most efficient, high quality system of allocating limited resources at a lower cost than ever in human history.
But Jeremy, “how will we be protected from people who steal and kill, and other predators without the power of the State?” Well, first you must understand that the State (government) is the biggest organization of theft, murder, and violations of individual sovereignty. They also are the most heavily armed organization. So when you stop supporting the biggest predator, you will have more resources to protect you and others from other predators. And when we have more generations raised in a peaceful environment without an all intrusive authoritarian empire, they will not be as tolerant of violence as we are.
Initiating violence in order to reduce violence
Some anti-gun voters may have good intentions, but the reality is the opposite. Those that consistently vote for stricter gun control “laws” and claim to be against gun violence think they are doing something good for society. But in actuality they are not anti-gun violence, they are supporting gun violence to be used exclusively by one group of individuals, in order to prevent another group of individuals from possessing and using firearms, even when those individuals are peaceful and just want to defend their natural right of violations against their life and property, or shoot at cheap beer cans. Of course giving a small group of individuals “authority” over other individuals will attract the most controlling, manipulative, sociopathic, power hungry, immoral individuals to fill those positions. Is supporting a group of sociopathic control freaks to have a monopoly on the ownership and use of assault weapons justifiable and moral? I’m sure you are already aware of the 200+ million humans killed by their own governments in the 20th century thanks to strict gun control laws that give power to unstable sociopaths. Hopefully those lessons from history won’t repeat. If you want to read a great book about how strict gun control laws can make a population so wonderfully safe and sound, pick up “The Gulag Archipelago”. I think you can find it in the diet book section, because you won’t have an appetite for a couple days afterward.
When a generation of children can be raised in a society that doesn’t support a monopoly of violence, that new generation will be more peaceful to each other. When a generation of kids are raised in an environment where they learn peaceful negotiation skills, rather than adapting to dominant or submissive relationships they will reject the idea of being ruled by others. When parents establish consistency in respecting property, kids will learn personal responsibility for actions. For example, if you give your kid an ipod as a gift, and later on he doesn’t do something you want him to do, so for punishment you take his ipod away as a “lesson”, that kid will learn that nobody really owns anything, and I can take that which does not belong to me if I want. That kid would be more likely to accept communism. I would suggest, anything you give to your child, make it clear whether or not that gift is now completely that child’s property, or the parents property that the child has conditional privileges of use. When you give a gift to your wife, and she does something you don’t like, do you take that gift away from her as punishment? When kids are raised in a peaceful, property respecting environment,they will learn that if they want someone to do something, or give them something, they must make a valid case, and find incentives, rather than using the fear of coercion. We accept the monopoly of violence in society, because we were born into it. Free yourself from the matrix you were nurtured in, and take an objective look at your world.
Free markets bring better alternatives
Do you prefer a forced monopoly (you already know the negative effects of monopoly, right?) on services of protection like you have now, or do you prefer having the freedom to choose the best organization of protection and security that is suitable to you? In a free market, that which is demanded, is efficiently supplied in the highest quality manner, and with the freedom for you to choose the best alternative. So if protection and security from bad guys is demanded, it will be supplied by creative entrepreneurs, and those that supply protection services with low quality results, and at a cost too high, or with corrupt practices, will not be supported, and will not survive.
Remember, a free market is just individuals interacting and negotiating voluntarily without any interference from a coercive third party. Of course there’s hardly a free market left in America now. In a free market, whatever is demanded is efficiently supplied, so if people want order and harmony rather than chaos, the free market would supply that better than central planning could ever dream of.
Most rebuttal attempts from those that endorse politicians and government have to do with the negative effects (incorrectly assumed), and apparent chaos that would result from not having a group of rulers telling us how to live our lives. The Statists always bring up the questions of how infrastructure, electricity, clean water, protection from internal and external threats, and turtle behavior studies, etc. will be provided without central planning. They must be assuming these things came about exclusively from the State. The State never created any of these things, they just took it over and turn it into a forced monopoly. The voters fall for the fallacy that says, if the State does not provide that which the State currently has a monopoly on, then it can not be provided otherwise. Entrepreneurial free markets always provide higher quality, lower cost results, than central planning by force.
But I would say the economic argument is secondary to the ethical argument.
Natural law of self-ownership
For some reason no one wants to even acknowledge the ethics. Why not? If you think ethics can not be objective and secular, please review a previous article “Nature’s Ethics.” Many rulers and groups in societies proclaim a set of ethics that applies to everyone in that society except the ones that enforce the ethical decrees. That is invalid. If ethics don’t apply to all people, at all times, at any place, it is an invalid set of ethics. Ethics must be universal to be valid.
Those who eagerly bow to arbitrary “authority” wrongly believe that they do not completely own themselves. They fundamentally believe they are owned by some other individuals called “representatives”, and they beg these “rulers” for varying degrees of what they are “allowed” to do or not do.
Don’t you prefer a population that prefers to defend individual self ownership. If not, why not?
Are you generally a good person, and treat others with respect (this question is not for the 5% of the population that are sociopaths)? Have you ever asked yourself why you are respectful and helpful, and care about others? Do you love others, and respectfully cooperate with others only because god commands it, or because the government has laws against murder, theft, and violence? If there were no commands reigned down from on high, or no decree from the elite sociopathic rulers, would you start committing crimes that you currently don’t commit? Would you go find some slaves to own? You’re probably saying you wouldn’t, because you know that treating others with respect and love is just the right thing to do. Do you think your friends and family would be the same way? What about your crazy uncle? What about your neighbors, and the people in your community, or the rest of your fellow human beings, do you think they generally would start being violent and violate the property of other individuals? If you answered yes to that, what do you suppose makes you morally superior than the others in your community? Why do they need rulers but not you? Are they not equal to you, or are they all just unpredictable sociopaths?
Do you personally think you need a third party with representatives to manage your life and tell you how to live it?
If you answered yes, then don’t you realize that you have the strength and wisdom within you to manage your own life?
If you outsource your personal responsibilities and choices to a third party of representatives, and that third party steals resources from another group of human beings without their consent (taxation), then you are attempting to benefit your own life at the expense of others by allowing a coercive third party to initiate the violence. In other words, you are aligning with an organization to do the dirty work of mooching and looting on your behalf. If you don’t feel justified in personally forcing others to live their life how you think they should, you should not feel justified in asking others to initiate the force on your behalf. I’m guessing, you wouldn’t personally do the things that the State does for you. If your neighbors were educating their children outside of the State curriculum regulations, or if a neighbor was making voluntary exchanges with others (running a small business) without a licence, or if he was using some illegal drug in the privacy of his home, or trading money for sex, without affecting others, would you personally enforce the man made laws the way the agents of the State enforce them? Would you follow the same violent steps that the agents of government take that I mentioned in earlier examples? I’m thinking you wouldn’t. So why would you support a group of heavily armed people to initiate the violence on your behalf?
Am I being extreme, or logically consistent?
“But Jeremy, the arguments you put forth are not pragmatic or practical enough for an immediate solution. Don’t you think your arguments are a bit extreme?” Well, I’ll leave the pragmatic stuff to someone else. I am just trying to stick with universal primary principles of property rights and not initiating tyrannical force against others. The arguments put forth are based upon the primary principles of defending self-ownership.
If you are one who faithfully believes that you are owned by God, because you were created by her; It turns out that you still own yourself, because you are now in possession of your mind and body, you have control, free will, and responsibility of your mind and body, and your mind and body can manipulate things that would otherwise be in a state of nature, and those are things you now own. Maybe when you see Jesus and the rainbow horse (Colton Burpo can confirm this) in heaven, you’ll be owned by God again. Hope to see you there.
Statism, and even constitutionally limited Statism are violations of property rights. Respecting property rights is not “extreme.” Saying we should have limited government is like saying we should have limited rape. Sometimes rape is a necessary evil and we should have limitations on it. Or it’s like saying we should have limited slavery. Slavery is a necessary evil, and it would be extreme to make the argument that we should not support any slavery. A long time ago folks used to mistakenly think that slavery is just human nature. State force, rape, and slavery are all universal violations of the same principle of self-ownership. And I don’t support any violation of property rights (self-ownership). To support universal self-ownership in some cases while not supporting the same universal principle in other cases is a contradiction.
“But Jeremy, you’re living in a dream world; This free society is impossible to imagine.” I know, it will likely take multiple generations before we break free from this spell. I’m sure, a long time ago, most folks that were making the argument that slavery is wrong were told the same thing. They heard things like; “Slavery has always existed since the beginning of mankind, it’s human nature.” Modern civilizations are now well past that dream of ending full on slavery. Remember, the underground railroad (black market of ending slavery) was around long before the U.S. government finally got rid of laws that supported slavery, such as, fugitive slave laws, bounty subsidies, and northern freed slave immigration laws, etc. Slavery in most other countries ended just by eliminating laws, not creating laws. I’m just continuing the conversation of principles that the anti-slavery crowd was saying generations ago, and maybe many generations from now, folks will use their thought-to-text app on the iphone 99 and ask, WTF were they thinking, how could they live like that?
Political parties
Some Constitutionalists might say; “But Jeremy, the U.S. government is limited in power thanks to the Constitution.” Yes, the intention of the Constitution was to restrict too much power by the government with self regulating checks and balances. But the result is completely different. The federal government was formed to be the smallest, most limited, least intrusive government in the history of all countries governments. But even 100 years ago it had transformed to be the most powerful, unlimited, biggest, most intrusive government in the history of mankind, and today it’s an exponentially more powerful and intrusive extortion racket, war machine, invasive bureaucracy, and authoritarian empire, that anyone could have imagined 100 years ago. So how’s that Constitutionalism working out for you? The founding fathers had a great idea, and cool hair back then, but it turns out that it doesn’t work as intended.
The progressives (aka modern Liberalism, not classical Liberals) have it all backwards, they seem to label individuals and private companies that do business on a voluntary level as the evil bad guys, and any violence based organization like the State that initiates threats of coercion is somehow the peaceful, exalted good guy.
The progressives worship at the altar of the State, having faith that the all powerful, all knowing, supernatural politicians will guarantee fairness, wealth, safety, and justice with the stroke of the pen (and guns) like Harry Potter’s wand.
They claim to be all about tolerance and peace, but in actuality they support a heavily armed third party to be all intrusive in the lives of others in order to force others to live their lives in the progressive anointed vision. So much for tolerating others and leaving peaceful folks alone.
Many conservative Christians vote for Christian politicians to be the representatives in government. But you could have the most angelic group of representatives, and it still wouldn’t change the fact that the interaction we have with the cult of government is based on obedience to the threat of violence. Why any Christian would support a violence based system is beyond me. It’s like trying to put a bunch of compassionate, loving, peaceful people in the ranks of the mafia or a large street gang. How about just don’t actively support the mafia and start supporting voluntary interactions; wouldn’t that be more “Christian like?”
The Libertarian political party is even more contradictory. The foundation of libertarian principles is non-aggression and respect for property rights. Libertarian principles (these are universal principles by nature, so they don’t apply exclusively to one who calls himself “libertarian”) logically rule out all forms of government. If the organization called “government” no longer enforced man made “laws” by initiating threats of violence, it would no longer be “government”, at that point it would be an organization or group of individuals who interact with others on a voluntary basis where all parties involved consent to the interaction (like a private organization). You either bow to the inalienable natural right to defend your mind and body (property) and respect the self-ownership of others, or you can support statism; You can’t have both. It’s a logical contradiction.
“But Jeremy, why not just vote in a bunch of limited government style politicians?” Well, that still contradicts the undeniable principles. You are still essentially begging your master for more freedom. Remember, there is no such thing as a legitimate master among equal human beings. You are the master of your mind and body.
If you want to live your life as a masochist, as long as all parties involved in the sadist/masochist relationship consent for the duration of that interaction, that doesn’t violate the principles. But it also reveals that you don’t like yourself very much, and you could use some therapy.
If you think these principles are not universal (applying to any person, location, and time), and there are exemptions, you must also show how we don’t have equal self-ownership, and how some humans have some magical right to rule, and others must be servants. These are the same principles that made people realize slavery, the subjection of women, and feudalism are all immoral.
Humans have no right to rule other equal humans
The immorality of government does not directly reside in the politicians, enforcers, and buildings, etc. The problem is in the irrationality of believing that some individuals have a moral right to rule over others. It doesn’t matter who is voted out or in, or what legislation is reformed, the delusional belief in obedience to “rulers” is the fundamental problem. How is it that certain human beings are magically exempt from principles and ethics? Are we not all equal?
“But Jeremy, we need leaders in society.” You’re right, we’ll always need leaders, but there’s a difference between a leader in an organization that interacts in a coercive system, and a leader in an organization that interacts on a voluntary basis. One acts as a master that must be obeyed, the other acts as an equal that plays well with others.
Take personal responsibility. It’s in our nature to be self-reliant, but we have been fooled into thinking we need to be governed by an external entity. Some choose to be ruled by the concept of god, others choose to be ruled by the concept of government, and some are nurtured enough to fall for being directed by both abstractions.
Do you support the act of others initiating force and coercion against you without your consent? If yes (sometimes) then, what gives them the right to violate your mind, body, and the effects from your mind and body? Don’t you care about yourself? Don’t you own 100% of your mind and body? If not, why not?
Do you support the initiation of force against me? If you submit a voluntary vote in elections, then you surely are supporting the initiation of force against me, right? Do I own 100% of my mind, body, and the effects of my mind and body? If not, why not?
Have you ever seen those videos where animals help each other, or when one species helps another, like where the swan was getting food and giving it to the fish, or the bear pulled the drowning bird out of the water? I wonder if some species are evolving to the point where the mirror neurons facilitate an understanding that we are all interconnected individuals, and understand that there are universal general preferences among all living things. Living is preferable over dying, nourishment is preferable over starvation, comfort is preferable over pain, true is preferable over false, etc. This empathy for preferable behavior among all conscious beings is the source of objective morality. When we gain empathy, we want to help others, and we defend the preferences of others just as we defend our personal preferences. Humans generally have empathy (although there is plenty of room to grow in that department). The problem is that the organization of elite sociopathic control freaks that don’t have empathy, exploits our empathy, and people endorse this organization by voting for who will be the exploiter. The elite political ruling class tell you that they know what is best for your life and for society, so let them plunder that which belongs to you, and they will pool the loot and help all those in society that need it.
Before humans had a methodology of logic, they were easily fooled into believing that the rulers had a right to rule from divine origin. The kings, and ruling class were superior because they were appointed by God. After all, the high priests that were well taken care of by the kings, validated the superiority of the elite class of humans; how do you argue with the high priest who communicates with God directly? Most folks now realize, that was all bullshit. (BTW, if a priest smokes pot, does that make him a high priest? Thank you, and sorry) But somehow, the elite ruling class around the world, still has the majority fooled into thinking they are still superior than the general population, and therefore fit to rule. I suppose now, they claim intellectual superiority, where they say, things are so complicated now, and the world population is so high, and folks surely can’t think for themselves, so there is no way to provide order and peace other than the central planning decreed by the superior rulers.
It’s ironic that folks vote for more government financial regulation with the intent of combating the extreme wealth inequality by the “1 percent”. The reason there is such a huge wealth gap is because of government regulation. Any company, corporation, or Wall Street bank, that is politically connected with lobbyists and financial contributions loves financial regulation because they can use that coercive regulation to favor the politically connected, and obstruct any competition that’s not connected to the ruling class. A free market has no established coercive organization that can give power and leverage over any competition that may produce a product or service with higher quality or lower cost. For more information on the source of the extreme income gap, check out my articles “Big Bad Business” and “What is the cause of the wealth divide between the top 1% and the rest?”
But when has central planning ever had a net positive result in the history of mankind, compared to the results from a free market of individuals interacting with each other? Never.
Just look at all the variety of food and beverages in different restaurants in New York City for example. Fresh fish, vegetables, fruits, spirits, chocolate cakes, and many different cooking ingredients all find their way to different restaurants every morning. There is no central agency directing the supply, demand, price, or quality of this orchestra. It is each individual exchanging and negotiating with others upon their own volition to gain personal benefit (which results in a net benefit for society).
Now look at all the ridiculous rules and regulations enforced by a third party not involved in any of these direct transactions, that get in the way of such an efficient system. Imagine how much more could be efficiently supplied at a lower actual cost, and with higher quality results, if there were no coercive third party involved in that ecosystem.
You see, a free society doesn’t translate to “every man for himself” where each guy has to grow his own food, or build his own house, etc., it’s quite the opposite, it means transactions are made where all parties consent. This peaceful cooperation provides more incentives to associate with others. Somehow people translate this to be chaos. Some folks still can’t break free from the idea that if it’s not produced by force via the State, it can’t be produced at all. If people really wanted something, it wouldn’t need to be forced. If the [mis]allocation of resources such as the “affordable” healthcare act, social security, public schooling, etc. is so wonderful, why does it need to be forced into society?
In our personal local lives, we generally understand that we will get higher quality results at a lower cost when we interact willingly with each other to get what we want, rather than the higher risk, lower quality results that come about from hurting others and taking their stuff.
Its seems as if we understand the benefits of free market interaction on a local individual level, but we don’t understand the benefit of free market interaction on the larger scale of society.
It also seems as if we understand and respect the individual self-ownership of each other on the local individual level by not initiating aggression toward each other, but on the larger spectrum of civilization, those ethics vanish.
The utilization of free will requires responsibility
After some folks take the red pill and break free from the master/servant framework of a forcibly imposed master plan paradigm (this may be more difficult for the minds of our chronologically seasoned generation to adapt to, but at least they get a senior discount at the buffet), it can feel as if a heavy burden has been lifted, but it’s also scary for those who always measured their conduct by how obedient they were to the arbitrary rulers. Instead of saying “there is no spoon”,to break free from this matrix, I’ll say “there is no system with a master plan.” Obedience can be easy because it is an act of outsourcing responsibility to artificial superiors. To have to identify right vs. wrong on the objective basis of natural law can feel abstract and foreign to one who is new to embracing individual sovereignty, but in reality it is very simple, clear, and logical.
I’m not trying to get any sort of utopia from this (utopia is always a moving goalpost, like pot at the end of the double rainbow), I’m just trying to get folks to break free from this primitive way of interacting with our fellow carbon based human lifeforms. Once you see the relationship you have with the government for what it really is, you’ll no longer be able to passively ignore it. It’s like when you see the arrow in the Fedex logo, you can no longer un-see it.
Addicted to Statism
Even if some do recognize the artificial control of the State, they will still not want to let it go. It’s like trying to tell someone who’s been a heroin junkie since birth that a clean and sober life is much better. Even though a free society will be much more comfortable and peaceful, the transition towards that direction will be uncomfortable for many, just like a heroin addict going through withdrawls. As the chains of the State start to break free, and an entrepreneurial free market starts to flourish, the effects of allocating scarce resources in a more efficient, high quality, lower cost manner, will be like the effects of methadone to offset the withdrawal symptoms of coming off the heroin. Every new program like a bankster bailout, currency infusion, medical care act, and on and on, is another shot of heroin just numbing the inevitable crash and withdrawal of Statism. There is never a net benefit from plundered pockets.
“But Jeremy, What’s going to happen to all the public school teachers, road builders, police, firefighters, soldiers, etc. that have built their livelihoods off the State?” Well, that’s a bit like asking what’s going to happen to a portion of the slaves on the plantation when they are free. The short answer is, I don’t know, but there will still be people to teach, roads to build, people to protect from local and external threats. It will just no longer be in control of a forced monopoly that doesn’t have to respond to market demands. That will make all the difference.
Just another jolly good fellow
I try to live each day on the outside of the Statist fence, but since we are completely awash in the effects of government, it’s difficult to do. I mean, in order to interact with others in this environment, for now at least, I still use monopoly roads, monopoly currency, etc. I follow the rules enforced by violence and pay the bastards for “permission” to operate my business, make an addition to the house, or operate a lemonade stand (do you still call America the “land of the free”, when your kid can’t even operate a lemonade stand without bureaucratic permits and safety checks? It’s suffocating the entrepreneurial spirit of the next generation of “John Galts”). On the other hand, I also, whenever possible, use crypto-currency, black market transactions like garage sales and Craigslist, education not influenced by government curriculum, and trail running etc., but it’s pretty slim pickings to be able to interact with my fellow people without the all intrusive and annoying third party “regulation” that voters advocate.
Those of you that associate with me, know that I’m an easy going, relaxed chap. I really don’t dwell on this stuff much, but it also shouldn’t be ignored. I am just a normal boring schmuck like anyone else, just trying to make it in this challenging and extraordinary journey aboard this microscopic speck on the canvas of the universe. I hope you also don’t dwell on this stuff too much either, but I just ask you to entertain these ideas, process it, let it marinate, and if it looks valid to you, I hope you subscribe to these principles, and let go of legitimizing pretend authority.
Consequences to actions will still exist regardless of any “ruler”. Being without rulers means one has to grow up, but that transformation brings a level of independence and empowerment that is far more valuable and rewarding than having a “representative” determine how you should live your life.
Right now, the vehicle that is equipped and willing to implement the immoral and ineffective behaviors that inhibit individual equal rights, peace, order, and voluntary interaction in the expanded field of civilization, is the elite governing class. The only thing that gives them the pretend power to rule, is that people vote for them to be representatives of the population. If you advocate inefficient systems of allocating limited resources with alternative uses, and you condone the initiation of coercion and aggression against your fellow human beings, including the instigation of force toward me, then go ahead and keep voting in the next elections. But ask yourself, do you want to keep supporting a violence based system with rulers, or would it be more ethical to support a principle based society with rules? I bet you live your personal life based on principles rather than violence, so why not universalize that into society. Reward yourself by thinking and acting upon your own volition, and embrace personal responsibility. Trust yourself.
My reasons for not casting a vote of support for the State are both economic, and moral. I would say the moral reason is the most important. I love you, and care about you and my fellow human beings, therefore I don’t vote. The U.S. government claims that their right to rule comes from the consent of the governed. I don’t consent. I hope someday you won’t consent either. Thank you for your time.
