Self defense is not an 'attack', 'aggression', or 'an initiation of force'

Self defense is not an 'attack', 'aggression', or 'an initiation of force'

I have caused some confusion with my assertion that it is never OK to attack someone. This is an old issue that crops up constantly in comments from those who do not like (usually because they do not understand) the Zero Aggression Principle, even though it seems perfectly clear to me. If one person expresses disagreements, many more probably have disagreements they do not express. So I will try to go through this as carefully as I can. This means I will be repeating myself a lot, just to be thorough. I hope I can make things clear.

The ZAP states, and it seems self-evident to me, that no one has the right to "initiate force" against another human being. "Initiate force" is another way of saying "attack". The ZAP does not address the right to use defensive force, which almost everyone agrees is a basic human right. The ZAP is not saying what is right; only what is not right. Self defense is never an "attack", although it may include the use of violence. You are not obligated to act in your own defense, nor in the defense of others, although I believe you should. That is a value judgment on my part: that innocent life is worth defending- your value judgment on that point may differ.

I understand "it is never OK to attack others" to be a principle. I think the difficulty some people have with this concept is that we are using the word "attack" in different ways. I think they mistake "attack" as any use of violence or force, which it is not. Some "attacks" involve violence; some violence constitutes an attack. Some, but not all, in both cases.

Here is a useful analogy: "Attack" is to "self-defense" as "theft" is to "trade". The final action may appear to be the same, but only if you miss the initial interaction between the involved parties.

Using this analogy I can state with confidence that it is always wrong to steal. If I walk into Walmart and simply walk out with a gallon of milk, I have stolen it, and that is wrong. However, if I give the cashier the money Walmart requires in exchange for the milk I have not "stolen" it, but have "bought" it. The circumstances of me handing over the money before walking out the door with the milk alters the morality of my actions completely. This is what happens when you respond to a violent encounter, which you did not start, with violence of your own. In both scenarios, same action on your part, with the exception of an important key condition. In the one case, you trading money; in the other case, you being attacked or threatened first. To claim that responding to initiated force is an "attack" is like saying purchasing the milk is "stealing". You would be ignoring a condition which makes all the difference.

So, I hope you can now see that circumstances can change the situation where use of violence, which would not have been right, now becomes a moral thing to do. This is not based upon your trying to justify your actions, but upon the actions of the person who chose to initiate force against you. Once he does that your response is not an attack, although it may include the use of force. He initiated the force; you responded. He attacked, you reacted. The given circumstances dictate whether the violence which ensues is an "attack" or not. Force? Yes. Violence? Yes. Attack? No. Because YOU did not "start it". That is the key.

Can a person "reasonably attack" if there is imminent danger? No, because if there is imminent danger, you are not the "attacker", reasonable or not. You are reacting to the attacker. Can you "retaliate with an attack" in self-defense? Not really. You can respond with force, but because you are "retaliating" you are not "attacking"; you are responding. "Imminent danger" and "self defense" mean that whatever you do it is not an "attack". Again: A response to a credible threat, or self-defense is not an "attack". An "attack" is when YOU "start it", not when you react to someone else who has "started it".

This is the problem with people who say "all violence is bad". No, it isn't. Sometimes "violence" is the proper response. You can't always properly respond to an attack (someone starting violence toward you) without reacting violently. Your violence is not an attack since you did not set the circumstances in motion. You were responding to someone else's choice to start violence with you, or to their believable threats to do so.

If you saw a kid with a BB gun which he was handling safely; posing no threat to anyone, and you tackled him because of his weapon, you would be attacking him. If that kid aimed the BB gun at an innocent person and you tackled him because of this action, you did not "attack" since he made the choice to act in a threatening manner, which any sensible person would interpret as a real danger. If, instead of aiming his BB gun in your direction, he claimed he was going to call down lightning from the sky to roast you where you stand, you would be justified in thinking he was crazy, but not in thinking he made a threat which he was capable of carrying out. You would not be justified in tackling him because of this ludicrous threat. If you do so, you would now be the "attacker".

What about a kid racing down a sidewalk on a skateboard who points his finger at a smaller child and demands that he "Move, or be hit"? I would take that as aggressive behavior on his part. That means he has "started it" and your reaction to protect the smaller child would not be an "attack", but a response. Once again, your response might be violence, but since it is a reaction to a credible threat, it is not an "attack".

Now, might there be disagreements as to whether a threat is "credible" or not? Yes. That is why there would be arbitration to settle matters like this. This is where "value judgments" would come into play. It is not a value judgment that it is wrong to attack, but it might be a value judgment as to whether a particular incident was an attack or not, due to surrounding circumstances. You make your choices and take your chances that others will see things as you do, if it comes down to arbitration.

I sincerely hope this has made the issue more clear. If not, discuss it in the comments, and I'll see what else I can do.



******************

This ain't your father's AK-47

This ain't your father's AK-47

My most recent crazy idea can be found in a letter to The Libertarian Enterprise. After reading the short description, browse around for a while. You will learn something.

Briefly, my idea is for a flintlock "AK-47". Would it be better to have a REAL, fully functional, AK-47? Of course it would. The psychological value alone is quite high, since few other guns upset the hoplophobes as much. There is no logic to their reaction, of course, but it can be fun to watch.

Still, if you live in one of those freedom-destroying cities and don't wish to break even counterfeit "laws", this could be a fun option for you. A way of flipping the authoriturds your "digitus impudicus". I'm sure that the localities which try to forbid toy guns would frown on a flintlock of any kind as well, as the recent incident in Bloomberg's own private prison demonstrates. Find your freedom where you can and, as long as you don't harm the innocent, have fun with it.

Stalled Projects

I keep having all these ideas that I would like to pursue, but they all crash into the wall of "no money". I realize this is no one's fault but my own. I do wish my ideas and "talents" were valuable enough to bring in sufficient money to allow me to follow through properly with a few of these projects. So far the realities of the market have shown that my ideas and talents are mostly valuable to me alone. My tastes seem to be outside the norm.

The one project I have completed is the Time's Up flags. They ended up costing me. If I could have afforded to have a few thousand made, they would have been inexpensive enough to sell well. I am down to the last two flags now, and am not sure when, or if, there will be any more.

The one idea that irritates me the most is the Silver Dubloon. This is also the one project I still lose sleep over. Once I get something in my head it is very hard to move on until it becomes reality. The rising price of silver, plus the need for me to pre-sell close to 500 of them, derailed this one. Someday......

There is also my childrens' book. If it is to be published, I will probably need to self-publish. I would also like to put my blog posts and Examiner columns into book form someday. I doubt I will have time to organize and edit them into a coherent whole while I am still writing them, though.

Just last week I had another idea. This time for a flintlock AK-47. Is this a practical idea? I don't know. It would be very functional, interesting, and pretty (in my opinion). I'd love to have it in my hands.

I even have other ideas that are much less well-developed. Just phantoms of ideas haunting my brain without defined form. So far. Maybe one of these will break through one day and be a hit.

Understanding ZAP and initiating force anyway

Understanding ZAP and initiating force anyway

I get quite a few comments from people who are just certain there must be good reasons for initiating force, in violation of the Zero Aggression Principle. Fair enough. I am willing to look into just about any aspect of freedom.

So what if you feel you MUST initiate force? It could happen, even with the most ethical person. Let's look at some situations, think them through to see if they are good enough reasons and real exceptions, and examine the fallout in a free society with private arbitration instead of government "laws".

Yesterday I mentioned the scenario of pushing an old woman out of the path of a bus. Almost anyone would forgive this breach, as it is obvious that the alternative is worse. Still, it is possible that you could cause some real injury in the process. My thought is you act on your best instincts and deal with any consequences as they arise. Maybe the woman was trying to commit suicide. You may not agree with that decision, but it is hers to choose. She, of course, would have been violating the rights of the bus driver if she chose to use him for her own demise. In such a case there is probably no arbitration that would penalize you for your initiation of force. Even if she did not intentionally step in front of the bus, perhaps she thinks you were too rough, or thinks the bus would have missed her without your intervention. Once again, probably no private arbitration would penalize you, or if they did, the circumstances would cause the penalties to cancel one another. On the other hand, if you hear of people being punished for doing similar "good deeds", you could make up your mind to never repeat their mistakes. It is your choice. It is obvious to me that this is the situation in which we find ourselves today, living under government as we do.

A slightly less clear example would be tracking down and killing someone who raped your sister years ago. We are assuming he survived to walk away, and was not subsequently killed in another such assault later. This would probably be the most common outcome of aggression in a universally armed, POLITE, society as we are discussing here. Since the attack is not in progress, this would fall under "revenge" rather than "self-defense" or "rescue". Are you 100% positive you have the right man? Are you prepared to die in the attempt to kill him? Are you willing to pay any penalty imposed by arbitration between his survivors and you? Are you willing to open your family up to the possibility of an ongoing blood-feud between his family and yours? If you still feel you must track him down to teach him a lesson, do so with your eyes open, and don't whine about the results.

What about breaking into someone's home for food or medicine in an emergency? It is still wrong, but could easily be made right by paying restitution and an "apology fee" as soon as the crisis passed. Are you willing to take the necessary steps and accept responsibility? Then do what you feel you must.

What if you really believe you will be attacked in the future if you do not strike first? How sure are you? Could you be misreading or exaggerating the situation? Does the person simply bluster when they get mad? Are you willing to accept the consequences if no one else believes the person was a real threat to you? If your choice is between being harmed in the future, or paying restitution today for your first-strike, are you positive it is worth it? If you are sure, what are you waiting for?

I am not claiming that all aggression would be eliminated in a free society. What I am saying is that it would be better understood, and it would be dealt with more appropriately if we had private, competing, arbitration instead of government which gets its power through "punishment"- which it absurdly calls "justice".

'Zero Aggression' is a foundation of ethical behavior

'Zero Aggression' is a foundation of ethical behavior

It is a fundamental truth that is is never OK to attack others, nor to take their property away from them against their will. You can not act in this manner and still fulfill your obligation of right conduct. This is "aggression" and is a completely separate matter from "self defense" which is responding to aggression. It matters not if you are doing this strictly on your own, or if you are doing it on behalf of an organization that claims to have the consent of its victims. It doesn't matter if you are wearing jeans and a T-shirt, or a business suit and tie, or a uniform of any kind. It is still absolutely wrong. This is what the ZAP is all about- it illustrates that there is a level playing field and if it is wrong for you to do in this instance, it is also wrong for me to do. There are no extenuating circumstances.

You can not make a subjective estimate of whether it is OK to attack an innocent person or to steal from them. Well, you can try, but you would still be wrong even if you decided it was OK today or under "these circumstances". This is where statists go wrong. Acts that harm the innocent are excused as long as it is "them" who are harmed. And of course, to the statist, being "them" makes a person guilty anyway. This is absurd and contradictory.

It is not a subjective estimate if it harms someone who does not deserve to be harmed right now. It is objectively wrong.

Does this mean that you will always do the right thing? Of course not. Does it mean that you and I will never cause any harm? No. If an action is that important to you, just do it and then attempt to convince others that it was necessary at the time. Imagine tackling an old woman to get her out of the path of a bus. You would probably cause harm to her in the desire to protect her from potentially greater harm. Ask her forgiveness, and if she refuses to give it, make it right or seek arbitration. Do what you feel you must, and if you cause harm, face the music like an adult.

Finding freedom

Finding freedom

Trying to achieve freedom by using government is like trying to ride your bicycle to Mars. There is not even a rational "starting place". However, you don't need to destroy all the bicycles in the world in order to get to Mars, just ignore them because they are irrelevant and make a vehicle that is appropriate for the task.

The allure of the state is real for a lot of people. It is easy to get seduced by the power and even by the big buildings, built with stolen property, that those who play the game get to use. Keep playing the state's game, with rules established, interpreted, and enforced by the state, and you will keep losing freedom. While the general drift of history is toward more personal freedom, the trend of all states is always toward more state power at the expense of personal liberty. This also means all states are doomed from the beginning. Placing your hopes and dreams in them is a dead-end prospect.

Whether your preferred government is based upon a Constitution or a religious book, the end result is the same: A consolidation of power at the expense of personal freedom and dignity.

When I discuss everyday anarchy, some people try to claim that my circumstances must be unusual. Yet anarchy works as our private, daily lives illustrate to anyone who cares to pay attention. Anarchy is a self-regulating and self-correcting system. The things that don't work will get replaced by new things that do. This is because there is no one "at the top" demanding that failed ways be adhered to because of "The Law" or "tradition".

I like for the world to be rational. I like for it to make sense by all parts fitting together in a unified whole. That is why I value liberty. It fits well with the rest of the universe, making a coherent whole. Science and liberty are just different parts of the same spectrum of rationality. Statism, on the other hand, is an irrational mythology that claims that either people are so bad that they need people to control them, but the controllers will not be bad, too, or that those who seek to control others are only doing it for selfless reasons and will never take advantage of their position.

We all know what is wrong with the world. Yet, we can't fix the world all at once; we must do it one individual at a time. So lets start trying to fix our own lives and make them a little better and ourselves a little more free. It really is up to you.

More freedom, starting today

More freedom, starting today

I am going to make an assumption. If you are a regular reader of this column, I will assume you are at least somewhat interested in individual liberty, and are not an enthusiastic parasite wanna-be.

So, what can you do, today, to start living your freedom?

First, I would suggest "divorcing" the state. If you ever "married" it in the first place, that is. "Common law marriages" between you and any governmental branch that you didn't actually agree to are nothing more than "implied consent" and are meaningless. The state is an intruder which moved into your home and decided to stay. Being nice, you didn't kick it out immediately, and now it seems uncomfortably rude to do so. Get over it. Stop feeling loyalty to the state. Stop defending its indefensible aggression. Where there is no "relationship" there is no such thing as "cheating".

If you have a job working directly for any government entity I recommend that you quit. I realize that some will tell you that you might do some "good" from your position. I think the harm outweighs the good, especially the harm to your psyche. Stop giving government an air of legitimacy by its association with you, and stop depending upon stolen money to buy your groceries.

Start making the default assumption that anyone involved in an altercation with any enforcer is probably innocent, and instead assume that the enforcer is the attacker. This is more realistic and the assumption will serve you well.

If possible, shun those who continue to work for government. No matter if they are on your city council or on the Supreme Court, their job is causing harm to the cause of freedom. If they wear a badge, then they are the foot-soldiers in the "War on Freedom". The cops are being taught during their training that the equation is "Us vs. Them"; we can learn that lesson as well. Take it to heart.

Start exploring gray market opportunities, and even the black-market where your principles do not clash with the activity. You will need these skills sooner or later, and it is good to start making connections and learning the ropes before it is truly necessary. This also helps starve the state of "tax" money. Just remember to mind your own business, and as long as someone is not harming the innocent, they are within their rights, even if what they do offends you.

Avoid, but don't worry about, governments. They are not omnipotent or omniscient. They are also doomed. Learn whom to trust and who is a toady for the state. You may get clues in many ways, including this observation from Will Grigg: "(T)he TV series COPS.....is a kind of authoritarian pornography for the badge-licker population." These are the people who may turn you in for a pat on the head. Keep them in the dark about your life.

Do what you can, and don't wallow in guilt for the things you can't change right now. It is your life. Take it back.


********************

Government is a euphemism for slavery

Government is a euphemism for slavery

Listening to people talking at a recent family reunion, I overheard a couple of political discussions, even though I really tried to avoid such pointless yammering. That there is widespread dissatisfaction is obvious, but it seems bizarre to me that the foundational concepts are not questioned. How much and what type of slavery might be acceptable is discussed; never whether slavery should be allowed to continue at all. I admit they don't discuss it quite that honestly, usually pretending it is a "conservative vs liberal" issue, thereby ignoring almost all of reality, but whether or not slavery is OK is what the question ultimately boils down to.

Do you recognize that you alone own yourself? Or are you content with undeservedly living the life of a slave? I ask again- Do you own yourself, or does the government own you? I will let you in on a secret: the government could never own you even if you tried to sell yourself to it. Government has nothing with which to purchase you, since government can't legitimately own anything. And, if it did try, you would be admitting that you own yourself in order to legitimately sell yourself to the state.

If you own yourself, why would you let any government assert control over your life? Why would you let a government deny you the proper tools for self defense? Why would you let any government dictate what you eat, drink, or smoke? Why would you ask any government for permission to do things that are your right to do simply because you exist? There is no reason, and most assuredly no silly "social contract" that says you implicitly agreed to do so.

As long as you are harming no innocent person, no one, and certainly no government or its agents, has any authority to stop you or coerce you in any way. If they attempt to do so, they are committing an act of pure evil.

Since the entire political process is only established to let you choose what color your chains are to be, not whether they should be on you or not, some of us just smile at ourselves when we hear the clueless debating the brainwashed.

Cops and guns

Cops and guns

Do you think "the policeman is your friend"? If you are a gun owner, you may think that since LEOs carry guns they have something in common with you. If you read any gun magazines, you will see articles about guns written by cops and ex-cops. You may not even notice the "Only Ones" attitude, in spite of the sprinkling of abominable phrases like "properly licensed", or "where permitted".

You would do well to recognize that the reality is different than what you may assume.

Cops, for the most part, see guns as something only they should have unless they decide to permit you the same "privilege". If you properly beg their permission, and obey all the unethical "laws" their cronies enact (and which they enforce), you might be "allowed" to own a gun, and maybe even carry it - until they get twitchy about it. Then the first thing that will happen is that your gun will be taken or you will be shot as a potential danger to "officer safety". Forget all the nonsense about "street cops" having a different attitude about "citizen" gun ownership than their masters at the hive- um... "headquarters". Just walk past a cop with a holstered gun on your hip, in most places in the country, and see how well he respects your rights.

Once, as I left a gun store in a city far from here, I was approached by a nice older gentleman. He warned me that the store proprietor was an ex-cop, and that a lot of off-duty cops were among the store's customers. He said I should trust no one in the store and watch what I said. The funny thing was, I had not spoken a word other than "Hi, just looking" as I browsed and could not have come across as "governmentally skeptical". It was simply assumed that I, an obviously "non-LEO" gun appreciator, should be warned about the treacherous vermin inside. A sign of the times if there ever were one.

Personal freedom is possible today

Personal freedom is possible today

I am just a little conflicted.

I know I can live free. I also see the power of the state grow each day to the cheers of the ignorant individuals who make up our "Idiocracy". I know that the long-term direction of civilization is toward greater individual freedom, even though short-term (still often longer than a human life-span) detours through horrendous slavery and coercion ("enforcement") are common themes. If I could only be happy; if I only considered myself "free"; if all of society recognized and respected freedom and turned its back on authoritarianism the way I do, I would be very sad indeed. Fortunately, that is not the case.

Some days I focus more on my personal freedom to live according to my principles no matter what surrounds me. Other days I focus, at least in my columns, on the growing threat of the state. Yet other times, I celebrate the general historical trend toward freer individuals. I see no contradiction in this. Some seem to. Perhaps the perceived " contradictions" (comment from 1:25 PM) are only seen by those who can't think beyond the false "conservative vs. liberal" patterns. Or maybe I am missing something else altogether, and I am contradictory in other ways.

Even when exposing the state for what it is, I am not pessimistic about long-term freedom. I am not even pessimistic or worried about my own future. I do not sulk, pout, or look with suspicion or hatred at every person who is going about their own business. I almost never encounter anyone who is behaving in any way other than glorious personal anarchy. Most statists prefer to send agents of the state to initiate force on their behalf rather than committing evil acts in person or instead of risking alienating those they must deal with in order to survive, and actual violent aggressors are really pretty rare. I attempt to avoid those organs of the state, who, by their dress or attitude reveal themselves to be without principle. It may not always work, but so far it has been a decent strategy.

As to the state's expectations and demands: I will not comply. I will not submit. I will not consent to be used against innocent individuals by the coercive state. I will not allow the state to use me as an excuse to steal from you, or to kidnap you. This is the essence of my individual freedom, and it is something for which agents of the state may one day kill me. I refuse to worry about it, though.

I will just keep trying to live by my (grammatically clumsy) credo: "On my honor as a human being, I will give zero respect or obedience to counterfeit 'laws' or systems of belief, present or future. I do not give, nor have I ever given, consent to be subject to the whims of the criminal collective known as 'government'. I will strive to avoid aggression, and will defend myself and others in whatever way I see fit against all attacks. I will seek to live as free in my body as I already envision in my mind."

Military truths hurt

Military truths hurt

Don't dare speak the truth where the military is concerned. Your point will be ignored while "patriots" use the opportunity to denigrate you personally. I learned this lesson long ago, yet still speak out when I feel it is important to point out a hard truth. I am either stubborn, or love to be abused.

A military "murder-by-remote control" story in the local paper caused me to speak up yet again. The sad thing is that I didn't even really speak out against the program or its pawns; I only pointed out a basic flaw in the thinking of the quoted official.

It is disturbing to me that "bravery" and "honor" have come to be measured by how willing a person is to attack others. This doesn't seem at all "brave" or "honorable" to me, but cowardly and despicable. To me, real bravery is having the principles to wait until you are attacked, or credibly threatened, before acting in face-to-face self defense. Self defense is honorable. Sending robots to do your killing for you is not.

There is a glaring discrepancy buried in such military actions. The military can use machines to remotely go to other people's homes and kill them. Yet, if I rig a shotgun to the door of my own home to kill an intruder, I would be charged with murder. I am not even rigging the burglar's house, but my own. Where is the sense in that?

On second thought, speak the truth about the military at every opportunity. By their comments you will know who can't be trusted.


***********************

Ruler- the Definition

A "Ruler" is someone other than yourself who orders you to act in certain ways. A leader "leads" by example; a Ruler orders you around. A Ruler may demand that you act in ways that violate your values and principles. Government and bureaucracy is composed entirely of "Rulers".

While you probably regulate your own behavior, and therefore "rule yourself", I do not consider you a "ruler" over yourself, as such, since you still will probably act according to your own values and principles. You are on equal footing with yourself, and not "over yourself". That is why, when I use the word "Ruler" I am referring to someone external to yourself.

The Reason for the Definitions

I get told frequently that I define words to mean what I want them to mean. Yes, I do.

I believe everyone does this, but if they do not buck the status quo, no one notices. There is no way for you to mean every dictionary definition each time you use a particular word. Not unless you have many different personalities inside you giving you conflicting ideas.

Therefore I make an effort to tell people what I mean when I use a certain word in order to minimize confusion. In order to facilitate this I decided to define the words that receive the most attention.

Just use the "definitions" label if you ever get confused about my usage of a word. If the word is not there, ask me to post it here.

Government- the Definition

"Government" is what most people call what is more accurately called The State or political government. Through common usage, the words have come to mean the same thing to almost everyone. It's the shorthand way of speaking about individuals who choose to initiate force and theft (using the political means rather than the economic means) while hiding behind a name they think gives them legitimacy; they attempt to govern others.

There is no such thing as a "right" to govern others.

"Government" can be thought of as an organization of individuals who attempt to make the rules for a particular geographical area. Regardless of their claims, they are not voluntary or consensual, as "v*ting" and other participatory acts never really make a substantive difference because of the rules which the government has established to regulate the election process.

Government employees allow no competition with their organization and no opting out. Government acts are financed through "taxation", which is merely statist-speak for "theft by government". It holds a "legal" monopoly on the use of force, enforced by its own hired guns and backed up by the courts it runs, and is perpetuated by youth indoctrination centers ("public schools").

Because government employees are expected to enforce the rules that limit their own power, there is really no limit to what they can get away with, given time.

The belief in the existence of "government" is based on the superstitious belief in "authority".

Unless I qualify the term by placing "self-" in front of "government", I am referring to an external coercive force, and not the necessary condition of "self-control".

.

Anarchy- the Definition

When I use the word "anarchy", I am using the original usage: without (an-) ruler (archos). This doesn't mean, to me, a free-for-all. This means YOU are responsible for all your actions and accept ALL the consequences of those actions. It means you have accepted your basic human responsibility to govern yourself, instead of abdicating to some external coercive force (a Ruler or a government).

I realize that the dictionary has a lot of "chaos" mixed in with its definitions of "anarchy", but that is not ever what I mean. If you have a better word, just substitute that when I write "anarchy". OK?

Evil- The Definition

When I use the word "evil" I am referring to any act which intentionally harms any person who isn't currently initiating force or violating private property; harms someone who does not deserve to be harmed at this moment*.

Philip Zimbardo, in The Lucifer Effect, defines it thusly: “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.” So he includes the use of (imaginary) "authority" to influence others to be evil under his definition of evil. I agree.

(*An innocent person. No one is innocent all the time, nor is anyone never innocent. All you can do is judge their innocence or guilt at this moment.)

.

Need for government is a weakness

Need for government is a weakness

Recently I was taken to task for characterizing a need for government as a weakness. My actual words were "I am not so weak that I need anyone to 'govern' my neighbors". I stand by that statement.

Now, I will preface this by saying this is how I see it. This is what I do- I explain my views. Advocating or supporting government is a weakness in my eyes. How could it be seen in any other light? Government is only "useful" if you feel you can't do something on your own, right? Something "too big", "too expensive", or "too dangerous" for you to attempt on your own. Otherwise, what would be the point? Government is very good at co-opting large numbers of people and taking over a large segment of the market to do its work. It is also very accomplished thief with armies (real and figurative) to make sure its victims pay up. Government is also able to waste a lot of lives in pursuit of its goals with no real regrets. Things accountable people with actual moral character couldn't - no, wouldn't do.

Which gets back to my main point: Government is a crutch. Just as there are physical weaknesses (such as my 20/1600 eyesight), there exist character weaknesses and moral weaknesses.

Needing government is a character weakness. Desiring government is a moral weakness. Just why would you advocate for government? Do you need to be protected from others? I see this as an indication of a character weakness. Do others need to be protected from you? I would say that is a sign of a moral weakness. Do others need to be protected from other others? I think this is the most common excuse. I also think this is a rational disconnect; blaming your advocacy of institutionalized theft and coercion on ambiguous "others". Or does everyone need to be protected from themselves? If that is the case, why not just bubble-wrap the whole world or make the world one big padded cell? It would be less harmful in the long-run. Actually, this is what government is trying to do, but using coercion instead of logic and reason.

One question keeps coming to mind- If government is such a grand and noble idea, why does it always have to be forced on people, and maintained and protected with a monopoly on force?

Why 'anarchy' is superior to statism

Why 'anarchy' is superior to statism

Only anarchists can exist in society without feeling a compulsion to know everyone's business and control it. I can pass people on the street, and whether they are a Nazi, a Republican, or a Communist, it doesn't matter to me as long as they do not attack me or anyone else while I am around. They can have absolutely disgusting authoritarian personal views and "morals", but it doesn't matter as long as they do not act upon them. As an anarchist I understand that the lives of others are none of my business unless they choose to make it my business by initiating force.

Therefore, I do not "need" government to control other people. That would require a police escort for each of us, and while it seems this is where things are headed, it is not a good development, nor will it be successful at ending "crime".

I can get along just fine, left to my own devices. I find no reason to attack anyone, or steal from them. If they attack me or steal from me, I have more to fear from the responding enforcers than from the initial attack, especially if I am disobedient enough to solve the problem on my own.

I recognize that no one gets anything from government that wasn't stolen from someone else first. Society is a win/win game. Government upsets this balance and makes one side lose in every interaction. This causes aggravation and frustration and rips society apart at the seams; pitting "givers" against "getters". Then government uses the discord as another justification for its own existence.

Infrastructure and innovation, when attempted by government at all, cost too much and are pathetically anemic substitutes for what could be done without government constraints. Where would we be without government? Probably a few hundred years more advanced, is where. As an example of "government innovation": Government built already obsolete space shuttles in the 1970s from 1960's technology and didn't get around to flying them until the 1980s. Almost none of the original specifications or expectations were met by even this multi-billion dollar project, but this is how government "works". And these are the people who should be telling the rest of us how to live and prosper? Be warned, you are about to be "given" more government "innovation" than you can survive. "Obamacare" will mean "2009-level medical care"- well into the next century. It is inevitable.

So free yourself of the brainwashing. You are a sovereign individual. You are not your neighbor's keeper, nor are you his slave. Your obligations to him begin and end with the obligation to not initiate force. Don't meddle or ask anyone to meddle on your behalf. Accept your responsibilities and live your life. This is a very liberating way of life, yet it must be foreign to the authoritarians since it seems beyond their comprehension.

Punching holes in statism, without hurting feelings- I hope

Punching holes in statism, without hurting feelings- I hope

This is one of those times when a reader had some very good questions that needed more space than a comment box would permit. Perhaps you have been having the same doubts about a free society. If so, consider this a hand reaching out to you, as well.

Without further ado, I give you reader DLH:

Who gets to decide what your "legitimate" rules are ? You ? Me ? or the Leader
of the day ? Or can each of 300 million of us decide upon our own rules and
enforce them as we see fit ?

There is always only one legitimate rule, the same one that has existed throughout history: Do not attack others. This includes "economic attacks" like theft and fraud. I didn't make this up. Think "The Golden Rule" and "The Wiccan Rede". This rule probably evolved along with humans as they began to develop society. Without it, we would still be animals in the jungle. Ignoring it, or making exceptions for the state, is tearing civilization apart.

You rant about the rules of the majority being forced upon the minority .. how
else do 300 million people live together ? Move togather (sic) in some
meaningful way as is required by our very close proximity to one another.

By respecting the equal rights of every other person. That includes not allowing a government to punish those who use self-defense against those who do NOT respect those rights. What works for a family also works on a much larger scale. The rights of two people do not trump the rights of an individual. Nor do the rights of 300 million or 6+ billion trump the rights of a single individual. Rights are not additive, but are individual. No one, and no group, has the "right" to violate the rights of an individual in any way. If every person in America voted to take your house or kill you, they would be just as wrong as if you decided to do the same to your neighbor. If an aggressor attacks someone, then the victim has the right to fight back. If you witness an attack you have the right to step in and stop the attack. You do not have the right to get together with a bunch of friends and decide that because you think that "Loner" might someday steal from you, you will beat him up today as a warning. Once you do this you have become the attacker. This is all government does, although usually they start with counterfeit "laws" rather than a physical attack. There is no need to violate the rights of the minority in order to live peacefully. This is statist brainwashing propaganda.

Proximity does not necessarily cause conflict. Only forced proximity and unequal "privilege" granted by the state, exacerbated by the creation of a parasite class who contribute nothing while living off the stolen property of their neighbors. And yet statists see this as "civilized".

How would 300 million of us, as we "governed ourselves" react for instance to..
global pollution ? Terrorism ? an economic crisis spawned in some foreign land ?
a pandemic ?

"Global pollution" is a property issue. If someone is damaging your property, they need to be held accountable. They do not need to be protected by "laws" that allow them to pay a fine (which goes to the government, not the victim in any case) and either continue to damage your property, or go out of business, leaving the mess for someone else to deal with. "National borders" protect those who are damaging your property from the other side of an imaginary line. How is this right?

Terrorism is the weakest justification for government that has ever been grasped for. If the government would stop violating the absolute right of each and every individual to own and to carry any type of weapon they want, wherever they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission of anyone, ever, terrorists would go elsewhere. If government would stop sending destroyers and killers into their cities and villages, their reasons for being terrorists would evaporate. "Trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none". Wise words which the Rulers ignore at our expense. Terrorism is a government-created problem.

"Economic crises in foreign countries"- How is an economic crisis in a foreign land "our government's" problem? I admit, the US government has destabilized the world economy, but how is this a reason for continued government? If we were still using real money, instead of fiat IOUs, the world's economy would probably be stabilized and safe from prolonged crisis. Investing in America's real money could even protect foreign countries from serious economic problems. Instead, government manipulates the money supply, while forcing people to use the counterfeit "dollars" it prints. Government steals the value of even this phony-money by printing too much and causing "inflation". Then by allowing (or even mandating) dishonest banking practices like "fractional reserve banking", the government causes even more economic disaster. The thing is, prices don't rise; the value of fiat money goes down.

With a pandemic, people should be allowed to seek treatment from whoever they trust, using any medications they wish, without government intervention. Government "help" has a history of making things worse by not foreseeing the unintended consequences. Innovation is crushed under the government's regulations and by its FDA. No one ever talks about the people who died while the FDA wraps new treatments in a mummy of red-tape and backroom deals. Doctors are rationed by a broken licensing scheme that only rewards the ones who play politics well. Then you have the pharmaceutical company/government partnership. If pharmaceutical companies develop a vaccine, many people would choose to buy it. If it really works as advertised, the vaccinated people would have nothing to fear from those who chose other methods. You seem to also be ignoring the fact that wars, the main business of government, are prime causes of pandemics throughout history.

The problem is, with each of these examples I see even more reasons to get rid of the cancer of government. Or at least allow competition rather than monopoly.

And the final attempt at a coup de grace:

Has this world of yours ever existed anywhere, at anytime, for any meaningful
length of (comment cut short)

Some people make the claim that anarchistic societies have existed successfully in the past. I just don't know. Michael Stahl, the Sandusky County Politics Examiner is a much better authority on this than am I. My thought is that even if none have existed in the past, we are living in a different world now. Technology, especially information technology, would empower the individual and make things possible that were never dreamed of before. Just because it has never been done doesn't mean it can't be done now, and it certainly doesn't mean it is not possible. Have you ever seen a flock of several dozen people fly over your head without an airplane?

Statism- the Definition

Statism is the belief that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor.

One who justifies or excuses aggression and/or property violation (archation) when done in the name of political government (The State) is a statist.

Statism assumes the State to occupy a position superior to the individual; in other words, government-supremacism.

If this is what you believe, you shouldn't consider the word an insult, although I would find it insulting to be considered one.

If this position describes you, why be upset about it? Unless you feel you are wrong......

See also: Statanism



.