Recently, I was asked why I don’t vote. On the spot, I found it relatively difficult to communicate my particular outlook on voting without my mind running wildly this way and that. When the haphazard conversation had adjourned I thought about the question quite a bit. I haven’t voted since I was 18; although, I’m sometimes tempted to vote. I wanted to make certain that my principles still reflect the feelings I once held toward voting, feelings which went beyond justification of my political absense, but even persuaded me to actively speak out about the evils of political goings on in general. The following is my best shot at quickly summing up the slice of my philosophy which shapes my position regarding voting:
Circles are not squares. They are never squares. Among other reasons, this is because a square has four corners, and a circle has no corners. This single discrepancy explains the existence of the principle, “Circles are not squares”.
As a principle, the statement “circles are not squares” holds true throughout the ages, amongst all realms, and in light of new information. Principles do just that; they hold true regardless of variable circumstances. This is important. Understanding the basic concept of a principle allows people to create ethics and morals. Without understanding the concept of principles, ethics and morals are not only subject to change, but are even excepted from entire facets of life altogether.
Here is an exercise in the extension of the principle described above:
Are circles square in California? Are they square in Mumbai? Are they square when your friend’s dad comes around? Are circles square when a donkey steps over a four-leaf clover on the second Tuesday in March during a leap-year? No; circles are never square, regardless of circumstances.
Let’s try this with another principle – the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Simply put, the NAP suggests that it is immoral to initiate force against another person. This means it is “wrong” to initiate an interaction with another person or people in which you remove their ability to make a fair decision whether through violence, the threat of violence or any form of coercion. Before I get into why this is immoral, let’s try to think of an instance in which initiating force against a person is moral, or even neutral.
Would it be moral, or neutral, if a man were to walk down to the nearest donut shop and start strangling the person in line? Or, what if a woman decides she wants a raise at work, so she puts a knife to her boss’ throat and forces him to sign a new contract? Perhaps force is acceptable if a child wants to acquire his playmate’s toy, so he bonks the other kid on the head and snatches it away. Would any these instances be considered tolerable?
Keep in mind that all of the situations I’m putting forth are examples of the initiation of force. Now I’ll apply the NAP to what should be a familiar institution.
Is it moral, or neutral, if a small group of people think that they can spend money very wisely, and much better than the average layperson, so they hire costumed thugs to pillage the countryside holding people at gunpoint and robbing them of a portion of their wealth? What if all the while the robbers explain that they are stealing the money in the interest of public good? Obviously, this is absurd behavior.
Afterwards, what if the small assembly of frugal folks were to put forth several options regarding how the stolen earnings might be spent once they’ve paid themselves a handsome salary? And, what if they were to give the laypeople an option to vote on the matters? I would argue that this is still an absurd situation to comprehend and a model of hideously immoral behavior.
What if the small group intends to use a large portion of the stolen funds to hold the laypeople at gunpoint, regulating their behaviors, and controlling the people’s options regarding how to earn their livings, and with whom they become romantically involved? Ludicrous, I know. Only the most sociopathic brutes would demonstrate these sorts of unscrupulous attitudes and wiles?
What if the small group of people pitted the large body of laypeople against one another by forcing rhetoric down their throats from the age of 5 to 18 in indoctrination camps wherein children are brainwashed into thinking that voting is not only a fair way to affect change, but that it’s a civic duty? What if those children grew up to think that they had the right to tell other people what to do as long as people they agree with hold fire-power over the entire population? It’s hard to believe I may have to explain the reasons why these situations are immoral, but for the sake of conversation I’ll briefly attempt to do so.
Property is anything belonging to a person. Property begins with a person’s mind and body and extends outward to all things created by a person with their mind and body. I own my brain, I own my mouth, I own the words I speak, and I own the results of those words. I own my actions and the results of those actions. And, as this defines property, it is immoral to initiate force against people, because it violates their right to property. Force robs a person of their ability to fairly make a decision regarding their property. Whether a child bonks his playmate on the head and takes her toy, or a very bright adult steals someone’s living wages in order to provide wonderful benefits for the many, property rights are being violated, and that is absolutely immoral. Respecting property rights is a principle; therefore it extends to all areas of the universe regardless of contexts and conditions.
Any person, people, or institution whose foundation embodies a violation of property rights is inherently immoral. Also, the initiation of force is the most egregious crime committable; it is a violent crime even when the gun isn’t “in the room”- so to speak. Even when the gun is disguised as justice, and all the laypeople have been fooled into pointing the gun at each other through the “power” of voting, each person begging their masters to point the guns at someone else via policy, regulation, and legislation, it is violent and immoral. This is a truly monstrous system, because it forces people, it lies and manipulates people to act out against each other. It is an atrocious system, because it is immoral from the ground up. And, the majority of people are indoctrinated throughout childhood, in schools they cannot avoid attending, to love their country’s governments – the very governments which will steal their earnings and threaten to punish them throughout their entire lives. They’re taught that government is good, and just, and necessary. This sort of relationship, in which victims must love masters whom they inevitably fear, is the definition of sadomasochism.
The institution of government is a system in which I choose not to participate. I was born under the thumb of government, and I understand this culture; therefore, I continue to live here under the rule of government. However, I reject the state in all its terror. I pay off the costumed thugs, so I will not be kidnapped and abandoned in a rape-room. I follow the rules, so that I will not be robbed of my wages. But, I do not legitimize my involuntary masters by begging them to use their force to impose my will and my preferences on my neighbors. Thus, I do not vote. As so often seems appropriate, I’ll close with a quote by R. W. Emerson: “Insist on yourself, never imitate.”
I think many people find themselves too busy to worry about economic philosophy. What’s to think about? We work, buy things, sleep, and repeat. Right? Well, there may be a bit more to it. Economic philosophies reflect broad variance in the direction of markets. Public economic philosophy affects job availability, product availability, our wages, and our quality of life in general. And, it wouldn’t matter if people had no control over which economic philosophy dominates the marketplace, but we do.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive definition or comparison of economic philosophies; rather it stands as a vague description of a few predominant viewpoints in modern society. I hope you’ll research them further, but this should at least present a gauge of where you may currently stand.
The Classical economic approach to markets suggests that they regulate themselves. It states that people are intelligent enough to understand what products they value based on their own preferences (functionality, design, aesthetics, etc.), and they’ll determine demand in the marketplace. Classical Economics also says that competition between providers of products and services drives the costs within a market place, thereby making affordable all things necessary and otherwise in demand. In short, if people want something it will be provided within the marketplace, and competition between providers will ensure the price is reasonably adjusted.
Neoclassical Economics proposes that the Classical economic approach is correct. However, in times of extreme economic downturns and the subsequent shock, the Neoclassical attitude claims that the government must intervene and impose economic regulations on the markets by force. It also proposes that the government police the financial system through a central bank. Today this is done through Quantitative Easing in which over 80 billion fake dollars are injected into the markets to prop up our failing system every day. Which system you ask?
More and more we’re seeing our government leaning toward a more Keynesian style of economics. Keynesian Economics posits that government ought to regulate the markets regardless of current conditions. Whether the markets are up, down, or stagnant, Keynesian Economics pushes for government force in all facets of the marketplace from areas as directly effective to people as wage-control to areas of macro-scale significance such as interest-rates. The argument here is that people are excessively obtuse and, therefore, unable to comprehend their own needs and desires; they must have government involvement in their decisions.
So which category do you fall under: Classical, Neo, or Keynesian? Are you intelligent enough to determine what you want, or do you require assistance? Do you have confidence in your neighbors to determine their own needs most of the time with the exception of periods of economic recession? Or do you find that you, and those around you are so pitifully moronic in nature that you all need someone else far, far away to dictate the cost of goods, the availability of products, how much money you are allowed to work for, and your over-all quality of life? Let me know.
Again, this is far too concise a characterization of these philosophies, so you’d need to read a bit more on each to determine all of the market variables and exogenous factors that play a part in market behavior. However, philosophically, I think this is a fair assessment of these positions.
These days, youths in western culture are finding all sorts of new and exciting ways to fill their time. Some retreat to their inner selves and substitute socialization with video games. Others find solace in reaching out to their peers via social networking sights. Incredibly, there seem to be enough video games and web-based social networking avenues to keep kids entertained during the majority of their free time, and when these time-killers come to be boring and monotonous to their users there’s always an ocean of porn through which to freely swim and explore. Yep, these days, kids have everything they need to sustain their minds’ endless curiosity and longing.
So why are some teens suddenly so apt to distract, sneak up on, or otherwise catch off guard random adults and punch them in the face? Why are so many kids willing to commit mass shootings of their peers and authority figures? I have a theory, but it may sound “radical”, so prepare to bear with me. In short, it is a protest. It’s a rejection of authority. These kids don’t know it, but they’re storming metaphorical gates of the house that tyranny built. Let’s explore how it has come to this.
It all starts with an ideology. First a group of filthy rich people decide they know what’s best for other people with whom they have no connection, so they hire figureheads with qualities particularly appealing to the base of people they want to control. The rich people tell their figureheads what to say and how to say it, and they send the figureheads out to the masses to spread lies. The filthy rich people know that people believe what they want to believe, because the human species is principally susceptible to faith and confidence. They start with a message of fictive kinship in an attempt to bond their future subordinates with one another as this allows for horizontal ostracism.
So out march the figureheads spreading a bunch of nonsensical ideology about equality and fairness. The key here is to maintain the masses’ focus on each other’s’ worth as this fans the flames of social ostracism away from themselves and toward those whom they’d like to reign over. The figureheads dispense copious amounts of rhetoric into the ears of the people they want to control, and bestow even more symbolic propaganda to their eyes. They talk about a world in which “all men (and women) are created equal” and where “no child can be left behind”. They spend years convincing people that there are problems amongst humanity to which being governed is the key to the solution. This must be done over many years, otherwise people would simply remember that the reason the problems exist is that the government is forcing people to behave unnaturally.
Different figureheads are dispatched with different messages. Some spout off about racial inequality. Some are hired to lie about ways to bring people out of poverty. Some figureheads are hired to behave empathetically toward the prison population, while others are hired to be their adversaries and drivel about the need for more harsh incarcerations. Some bloviate about social injustices and the necessity for government programs to affect positive change for the underprivileged. Some are hired to infect their listeners with fear of economic collapse, mysterious terrorist-societies far, far away, and other irreconcilable threats to their subjects’ comfortable lifestyles. Thus, would- be normal folk are transformed into worry-warts and begin taking sides within their communities.
Of course this is all bullshit. No sane person would step back, think about what is being told to them, and then fall in line willingly with no sense of contempt for the status quo. Nobody who wakes up when they decide to, uses the toothbrush they decided works best for their needs, eats what they want to eat for breakfast, wears what they choose to wear for the day, travels however they feel like traveling (by foot, bicycle, moped, Segway, car, truck, train, plane, helicopter, etc), works where they choose to work, earns what they agreed to be paid, dates whomever they choose to date, becomes intimate with whomever they choose, watches whichever programs they want to watch, buys whichever products they want to buy whenever they want to buy them, etc, etc, etc, ALL WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, would hear a hired manipulator say to them “You must purchase this type of product, the product must meet my standards, and you must be in possession of this product by this time,” and think this is acceptable.
Alright, some abused children may have grown up to accept this sort of horrifying overreach by authorities, but the majority of people would tell a government official to “F*** off” if that official didn’t have millions of hired guns to back them up.
For the most part, children are manipulated and coerced into being obedient. They are not negotiated with; they’re not trusted to make decisions and guided through the results of their mistakes with compassion. Instead they’re hit when they make mistakes, shouted at when they disappoint, humiliated when they don’t succeed academically, bribed when they’re noncompliant, and dispatched to the care of public schools (an institution void of emotion and founded on coercion and theft) for thousands of hours throughout their most developmental and creative years. Children spend the majority of these most impressionable years forced into small rooms full of their peers, forced to memorize small bits of information which, when pieced together over decades, brand the children in their own mind’s eyes. Kids grow up without a sense of self outside of the image that’s been painted for them. They are molded to think of themselves as lesser than the government and subservient by duty to it. They’re taught that their friends are the Police, Firefighters, Teachers, Librarians, Mailmen, Park Rangers… and all government employees. They’re taught that people who sit in judgment of others for possession of arbitrary vegetation, and dictate how much time they’ll spend being sexually assaulted in a cage, are honorable and deserving of much respect.
Children are brainwashed and abused and manipulated by nearly every authority figure they meet throughout their childhoods. At some point they start to see the hypocrisy, and in the age of information they’re beginning to see it more clearly and earlier.
They realize that the police have no real ethics, no logical rationale; they simply work for a paycheck. Police hold-up, rob, kidnap, imprison, and subject to atrocious sexual abuse, any person they can by law, if they want to at that time (depending on how much paperwork they’re willing to do that evening). Police really are just doing their job – enforcing any laws.
Laws are experiments based on the opinions of a few very wealthy people who do not, and cannot, relate to your individual life. We are forced to comply by living under the constant threat of violence.
Teachers are paid with money stolen from their students’ parents! People who’ve never been to the students’ neighborhoods force at literal gunpoint the extraction of their parents money, and then they mandate that the children be indoctrinated in the public schools with specific information designed to brainwash them into being controllable.
Kids realize that they have no clue how the world works. They know they’ve wasted extraordinary amounts of time being force fed useless factoids. They have no hope for starting a legitimate business, they don’t know how. They can’t balance a checkbook – they’re completely financially illiterate. A fifteen year old has the mental capacity and physical fortitude to run a very small business, but a fifteen year old forced to memorize capital cities, dates of wars, and brainwashed into thinking that society ows them a place at the table cannot.
Every year more adolescents are drugged with anti-depressants, and speed, and they’re told that there’s something wrong with them, because they can’t focus on “their” studies. They’re placed in counseling sessions where an adult sits with them and listens to their warped feelings and continues the lie that they’re feeling unnatural and so they need meds to help them acclimate to the demands of the government. Rather than stop hitting our toddlers, American society has stooped to drugging their children with the hope that they won’t be able to see reality through the fog of narcotics.
Today, the kids can see. They open their laptops, and log onto their tablets, and “ask Siri” any time they want an answer. They know almost instantaneously if someone is full of it, and holy crap – America is overflowing with it.
Unfortunately, these underdeveloped minds lack empathy due to a minimum of father figure interaction, and a surplus of physical and vocal abuse. So, no, they don’t understand the risks behind what they’re doing. They don’t get that they’re not being productive, because they don’t know what it is to BE productive. They simply attempt to exist by entertaining themselves in virtual worlds. And when those virtual worlds stop feeding their needs, they give up. They succumb to “Lord of the Flies” pressure from their unsupervised peers and act out. What’s worse, those kids who have already become so deluded that they’re hitting unsuspecting men and women in the head are probably too far gone. And, they cannot be rehabilitated, because they were never habilitated to begin with.
What’s to be done? How do we keep from living in “A Clockwork Orange”? Well, first we need to stop hitting our children. Then we can stop drugging them, and forcing them to waste their lives in public schools. We could start reasoning with them rationally, being honest with them, begin to tell the government to “F*** off” when they mandate our children’s whereabouts and information intake. We can start teaching our children in depth about how currencies work, how they don’t work, and how to work to obtain currencies.
It’s so overwhelming when taken all at once like this, but when you step back it’s so logical. If we treat our children with respect and honesty and dignity and care we’ll reap caring children. Or we can continue to beat and berate and drug and lie to our children and concoct more advanced versions of the “knockout game”.
~ In response to the overabundance of mainstream-styled bloviating I witnessed masquerading as free thought on social media following the last presidential campaign I wrote the following:
November 6th, 2012
“Alright, everybody, its time I gave it to you straight. You don’t matter. Your opinions don’t matter. Your vote doesn’t matter. All the posts in the world, full of jeering and negativity and encouragement and exclamations, don’t matter.
Government, in general, is chalked full of devious agendas, sinister ploys, calculated plots and many more creepy-adjective/ominous-noun pairings. [Citizens] are to government authorities what lab-mice are to scientists. We are run through incalculable experimental conditions to include, but not limited to: extreme changes in social and cultural dynamics, legislative controls on the part of cities, townships, counties, states, and the federal government, economic modifications, and international relation/foreign policy adjustments. Meanwhile, the authorities observe us and make sure we continue producing the results they want.
The absurdity of the candidate concept, and campaign and election processes is unsurpassed. Wildly rich, and undisclosed, corporations bribe politicians (through the legal means of “lobbying”) and then pay off the most popular media outlets to send the most irrelevant, immature, and sometimes downright stupid messages feasible into the homes, cars and [mobile devices] of the American people. Our elected officials accept this, because in their eyes we are such moronic buffoons that they think we’ll actually listen to and watch them and interpret their hysterical messages as truth, or something. Unfortunately, most people are as ignorant as they believe us to be. Even the people who buck the trend and are genuinely skeptical of the candidates and their policies so rarely think critically of the entire system that the insights of those who do are usually discarded without consideration.
As a result of being unacquainted with facts, and allowing ourselves to be misdirected by crooked, biased mediums we have lost sight of the goal. We have lost our integrity as a nation. Today Americans are entirely void of any focus or perspective that might be helpful in making an educated decision regarding which candidate would be most efficient holding a position that maintains absolute control of our lives and environment.
Folks, do you really want a billionaire who wears magic underwear and thinks he’ll become God of his own planet when he dies making decisions for you to live by? Or would you rather have the inexperienced guy, the ex-pothead with a streak of charisma and a reputation for biting off more than he can chew?
On the theme of debated subjects…
Taxes? During the 2012 campaign, what tax plan was communicated to you clearly enough that you can honestly agree whole-heartedly with it? It wasn’t; they weren’t.
Tax loopholes? Which loopholes in particular does either candidate support, and how do they work exactly? You don’t know; virtually, nobody knows. I assert that tax attorneys, and corporate CEO types are about the only ones who understand these things, and even they have to spend hours tediously combing over the fine print in order to fully understand them .
Debt to China? How much Chinese debt have our politicians accrued? In what form is this debt? What interest rate is placed on this debt? When does it have to be paid back? Why was/is this considered a viable option? Who makes the decision to accrue this debt? Do you know? I bet you don’t. I don’t. Not too many people do.
Let’s talk about social issues. Are you certain about the stance either [Obama, or Romney] really takes regarding abortion, marriage equality, separation of church and state, recreational drug use, capital punishment, gun-control, social program spending, etc? Do you know, because you heard them clearly state what their stances are, or do you assume because of their party affiliations and your interpretation of their facades? What specific programs will be cut? What programs will be created? How will this alleviate the pressures of national debt, and how quickly? People just don’t have enough relevant information to make a sound decision. And, to be fair, no politician has a sound grasp on the requisite knowledge to do their job the way they promise to.
At the end of the day, regardless of what you think you know, you are being manipulated within your environment by laws, regulations, local policies and processed messages. The ever present threat of potential “consequences for your actions” to be enforced by government organizations is extended during election time to include consequences for inaction. Every election year leftist media outlets aim humongous rhetoric-campaigns at young people (who tend to be more liberal) in an effort to convince them to vote. This circus is so transparent, but the kids seem to enjoy being a part of something; if only they knew they’re building a road to their own debt-slavery.
Even if nobody voted today, there would still be a President. The entire acid-trip barrage of Le Cirque-like nonsense that makes up the presidential race is designed to misdirect and misinform the population causing us to think there is an enormous problem at hand, and that WE are the key to solving it. Why? In order to boost your confidence as a voting member of society, a patriot even! Besides, if your candidate wins you will more likely support him after the election out of stubbornness and pride.
How conniving! How dishonest!
The world’s most genius marketers have been running disingenuous, wretched election-campaigns for decades convincing subjects to the state (us) of the existence of a fallacious problem (four years of THIS guy! or four years of THAT guy!?), presenting us with solutions (THIS guy thinks this! THAT guy thinks that!), and ultimately commanding us to act now (VOTE!!!).
In reality, the problems facing our country and its masses are so immeasurably complicated it would be impossible for any individual to gain a reasonable sense of what is needed to fix all of them, and it is exhausting to think about. So, we tend to allow campaign messages, designed for dumbasses, to satisfy our curiosity just enough that we justify our decisions on how to vote.
Possibly the very most laughable part of the whole show, though, is how effective this control system maintenance has proven to be. Those who dug in their heels for Obama are feeling joyous. Why? What are they expecting from him? Nobody in the world has the technical knowledge, vast perspective, ultimate wisdom, and absolute devotion to humble morality essential to stanchly perform the duties of the POTUS. Certainly, Obama doesn’t. And those who voted for Romney are feeling discouraged and spiteful and are determined to see Obama fail. They’re so politically frustrated they’ll stay coursing through the veins of the government propaganda machines in earnest with hopes of witnessing Obama’s inevitable fall from grace.
So we are all engaged in some sort of supportive, or unsupportive role (regarding government) within our great society, and the politicos got us feeling as though we matter like cogs in the mightiest of wheels. Mission accomplished, politicos and your staff!
Most of us are all fools, lab-mice, morons, buffoons and peasants, and we’re ultimately supporting our own subservience! We’re aiding the government in maintaining control of our lives!
Restore your dignity; Don’t vote.”
We all know that it’s not okay for children to hit each other. But, does this apply in grown-up life. Let’s examine…
Were you to have a pencil and I a dollar, and were you to want a dollar more than your pencil and I to want a pencil more than my dollar we could agree to trade. I could walk away happier with a new pencil, and you could walk away happier with a dollar. It isn’t okay for either of us to bang the other on the head and take their property. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we engage in peaceful negotiation and walk away having transacted the pencil-for-a-dollar exchange .
If, as you walk away with your dollar, a thug were to approach you, put a gun to your head and proclaim his authority to steal a portion of your dollar you would call it theft. Even if this thug were to promise to give a portion of the stolen money to good causes (after paying himself, of course), it is theft. I am talking about the government stealing your money and calling it “taxation”.
I’ve heard it argued that there exists a social contract by which members of society are bound to provide for one another. But, alas, under close examination no such contract exists. In order for a contract to exist two parties must communicate an exchange of goods and/or services under no threat of force, and each party must agree to the terms of the contract. As stated earlier, this is not the case under the government’s so-called “social contract”. People do not agree to give their money to the government as a means to provide for the common good, because they are not given a choice. They are told to give their money to the government in exchange for not being imprisoned or murdered. Complying with a bully is not the same as agreeing to a contract. The immoral root of taxation is arguably why people dislike paying taxes fundamentally, though they have been conditioned to think that they dislike paying taxes because they’re selfish by nature (original sin doctrine).
In fact, people have been conditioned to think many things which are not true. For instance, paying taxes is not an accurate description of what people do. If you were to hand over the requested portion of your dollar to the armed thug in the storyline I described earlier, you would not be paying him anything. You would be complying with an armed robber.
If you were to resist the armed thug, let’s say he would then arrest you and take you to jail. Of course, you would more accurately describe yourself as having been shackled, kidnapped, sexually violated and imprisoned.
Let’s say you were to resist kidnapping, and the robber were to use necessary force to subjugate you, or perhaps even be obligated to use deadly force against you. You would probably be more precise in saying you’d been beaten or murdered. I could give countless examples beyond this, but I think you’re starting to get the point. The government justifies its immorality through soft language. The people are being fffffooled. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying you won’t first be penalized with fines for not handing over significant portions of your earnings – you will. I’m saying that the IRS will demand your money, then they’ll demand more of your money, and finally they’ll call up some costumed sociopaths to initiate force against you.
If someone feels I’m being extreme in my descriptions I suggest that they stop paying their taxes; I think they’ll quickly come to terms with the precision of my imagery.
So what is “mine”? What is “selfish”? Indeed, they are one in the same. Selfishness is one of the most basic instincts built into mammals to include human beings. Very early on children show a strong sense of “mine”. Just imagine taking a toy or ice cream cone away from a toddler. Indubitably, parents, teachers, coaches and the like expel this instinct from children on the grounds that it is “not nice” and indoctrinate them with a sense of sharing-as-duty or even virtue. But, this notion of what belongs to us is so essential and inherent within us that it really ought to be given some consideration before writing it off as a corrupt or non-virtuous trait.
The “mine” concept is innate rather than learned in order to provide us the desire to obtain necessities and to trigger our protective instincts when our property is threatened. Selfishness is beyond virtue; it is a rudimentary mental tool necessary for survival. Conceptually, this is akin to self-ownership, responsibility for one’s self, etc. It is instinct that drives us away from complacency and toward productivity in our own interest. This is a superb mental feature.
This doesn’t mean that sharing superfluous resources is unreasonable; in fact, sharing can be a wonderful act of cooperation, or charity and should be celebrated! But it must be understood that individuals hold the power to decide how much of their resources are superfluous, and when and where to distribute them – if they feel the desire to distribute them at all.
To force a person to give up the fruits of their productivity is immoral. After all, if a person’s possessions are acquired as a result of their own productivity and private-trade, then to force that person to hand over their possessions is to force them to work. This, which was once called slavery is now called a “social contract”.
Some people argue that were there no government to steal our money there would be no civil rights, no roads, no fire services, police forces, or all the things that government provides. This is a tremendous breach of logic and a stupefying attempt to justify the initiation of force. It must be understood that the government doesn’t produce anything therefore it has nothing to give to its subjects; rather, governments steal money from productive tax-livestock (you and me) and redistributes it to its agencies who then trickle the stolen money through the systems paying every bureaucrat on the way down until finally providing a service to a special interest group in order to bolster support for politicians.
Not only does the government not provide anything, it hinders social progress. To better examine this let’s pose some of the aforementioned statements in questions.
1) If there were no government who’d allow women to have equality?
I must first point out that women’s lack of equality in the world until less than 100 years ago was a direct result of governments. Governments dictate who is allowed to do what. Until the 1920’s governments dictated that women were lesser than their male counterparts. This changed due to a shift in societal attitudes. Had the government not existed to hold women back, society could have been able to move forward in their acceptance of women as equals far sooner. It was the state whose law was enforced on society through the threat of violence that is responsible.
This applies, of course, to all civil rights. While slavery was eventually abolished by a stroke of the proverbial government quill, it was also legally instituted with a previous stroke of that same utensil.
In fact, segregation was also enforced by law. When considering that the success of private business is directly proportional to the amount of customers partaking in their services, it stands to reason that excluding a large generic group of potential patrons from commerce would not be a viable option for business-owners for long. Segregation was legislated and enforced on the private market under the threat of violence; had it been a matter of private choice, it could have been considered unfeasible and been done away with through public ostracism much more quickly than we eventually saw through political discourse.
2) Who will build the roads?!
This is possibly the most preposterous question to ask, but so many people do ask. Well, first of all, I suppose private companies will build the roads without the government. There are certainly plenty of pavers and graders out there in the private market to build roads. And private companies will be in the business of owning roads. They’ll charge tolls for using their roads, and people will pay gladly.
At first, it must sound outrageous to suggest that people would have to pay a toll every time they use a road; I understand, but that is simply because people cannot afford to pay twice. It’s really difficult to understand this concept of constantly paying private-road tolls without considering what it would be like to keep your money in a world without governmental theft (taxation)!
Today, nearly half of an average worker’s wages are sucked up into the ever-present vacuum of government institutions in order to pay for things that probably would not be funded were the government not to hold its subjects at gunpoint. You see, if you weren’t being robbed to pay for walls around the country’s borders, or to pay for others’ medical treatments, or to pay for other people’s children to go to school, you probably wouldn’t. And this is fine. This is good, even! You shouldn’t pay for someone else’s responsibilities. You have your own responsibilities as a result of your plight in life and your decisions. Take care of your self.
If you kept what you earned, you’d be able to pay tolls on private roads. You’d be able to pay a privately operated fire department to protect you from fire stuff. Or perhaps you’d pay an insurance company who could pay a privately owned fire department. You could pay for private security in your neighborhood. You could pay for whatever services you wanted, and you could NOT pay for services that you don’t think are necessary for your well-being. It could be your choice. You could work to produce for your self, and you could keep what you earn, in a truly free society.
3) If you don’t like it you can leave!!
This is usually one of the last attempts to argue the statist viewpoint. Statists point to the notion that if you don’t like living under a constant threat of being robbed and forced to pay for others’ responsibilities “Well, then you can just move to an ISLAND!!!”
This is, without ambiguity, a complete breakdown of cognitive ability. Going back to our situation with the armed robber, if the robber repeatedly steals your money at gun-point and says to you, “If you don’t like the way I run my block, well, then you can just throw away all that you’ve worked for thus far and move to a new block!” that really isn’t a reasonable suggestion. It’s difficult not to laugh at the absurdity of this statement. Just imagine Paul Revere riding the opposite direction from town and shouting, “Oh no, guys! They won’t let us freely trade, so we have to pack up and move to the woods and fend for oursellllvvvves!” This statement is as astonishingly dimwitted as it is emotionally vomited out of desperation.
Here’s the kicker. It doesn’t matter. These statist arguments don’t actually hold a candle. All of these arguments are for effect. They’re scare tactics. Think about what is being proposed by these arguments. They imply that without the government, its theft, its threats, etc, we’ll all live in a world where women are mistreated, minorities are left by the wayside, in which there will be NO ROADS, and buildings and houses will burn to the ground in a heap of regretful, unpatriotic ash. It will be a world full of murderers and selfish narcissists. No one will care for the poor. The underprivileged children won’t be educated. It will be… …AAAnnaarrrchyyy!
In truth, nobody knows what it would be like in a truly free society. I, and many others, assert rulers aren’t needed to set the rules. Instead, public ostracism would be hard at work. Public ostracism can currently be seen working every day as pop culture dictates what is acceptable.
For example, when I was growing up it was cool to call people faggots, but if I were to do this today I’d be virtually (and possibly literally) flogged by society. Societal norms do shift, and with those shifts come direction on which behaviors are acceptable. Without the brutality of government social molding would be far more effective as norms would be shifted more freely without the extra steps needed to persuade elderly bigots who hold power through the threat of violence to make changes.
Free society is a ways off, but we can all start living more freely today by resisting the urge to search for handouts, taking responsibility for the negative consequences of our decisions and actions, and feeling good about reaping rewards for our good choices. Society owes nothing to us, nor do we owe anything to society. Reject regulation and taxation; instead move toward cooperation and liberty.