Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
There is nothing government can offer me that I want. The price is always too high, especially when it's "free".
I don't want their handouts or their idea of "national security", or economic stability/central banking, or "law and order". Their idea of "peace" or "prosperity" isn't compatible with mine, and I don't want their version. I don't even want the government versions of "freedom" or "liberty"-- those are shoddy substitutes for the real thing.
Economically, government can't give me anything it didn't first steal from someone else. I'm opposed to theft, so why would I want to receive stolen property?
I have no problem with letting others take whatever government offers-- or pretends to offer-- as long as I'm not forced to pay for it or to participate in any way. As long as market alternatives aren't prevented for those things government does that I might still like if offered elsewhere.
Why is this reasonable compromise off-limits? Is it because political government is anti-reason? Yes. Yes, it is.
The commie wanted to put me in a hypothetical scenario to show that property ownership is a bad idea.
His hypothetical scenario was this: I am stranded with one other person on an island. He hoards all the coconuts-- the only food source on this island-- and says the price for one is a specific sexual favor. He says property rights would make this bad situation possible. He also wanted me to say whether or not this was a voluntary exchange.
I don't believe in the no-win scenario. There are always alternatives you can try, even if they don't work. I pointed out that it's an island, so there would be fish and other seafood, and you could eat the core of the coconut tree (a short-sighted solution, for sure). He says this isn't allowed. No other food is available.
I say "No deal". I also said that only the people involved could say whether the exchange was voluntary or not, and that I couldn't really say for myself since I am not in that situation and can't really imagine any real situation being so lacking in alternatives.
I have survival skills and can make fire without modern cheats. I can collect and make water safe to drink-- possibly even desalinate seawater using plastic debris. I can make shelters, tools, and weapons. Is this not worth a trade? His chances of survival go up if he cooperates and down if he refuses to.
Having me alive is to his benefit. Self-interest-- if he's not insane-- should encourage him to keep me alive.
But, what if he doesn't see it this way?
Finally, I know I have no right to violate his life, liberty, or property. But... if backed into a corner to the point that I was desperate enough to ignore my principles, I might just kill him in his sleep. I have no right to do so (if you imagine that intentionally starving someone to death isn't aggression), but I might anyway. Because I'm human and I'm flawed.
The commie kept trying to equate this to a "trolley scenario" and even though I posted a link to how I believe such a problem could be handled ethically, he ignored that reply completely, other than saying my solution would just be to tell them to get off the tracks.
I think I've done exceptionally well in avoiding violating my principles over the years. I've been in situations where many others would abandon any principles. I'm not perfect. I can imagine scenarios that would make me archate, but imagining them gives me time to work out alternatives. I hope.
The commie insisted that since food, water, and shelter are necessary for life, and life is a human right, those essentials must be free for everyone.
But they can't be.
"Free" doesn't just mean you don't use money to obtain them-- money is a placeholder for value, and that value is usually a proxy for some work that was done. "Free" would mean you get them without anyone working for them.
If you get food, someone had to work to, at least, collect it. It was probably also planted, harvested, processed, prepared, and distributed, or some combination thereof. All of that is work-- a cost. Whether you do the work or someone else does, it is never free.
Water must be collected and filtered, sterilized, stored, and distributed. That's work. If you've never had to work for drinking water even when water was all around you, you may not be aware of the work involved, but I have. I know.
Shelter-- housing-- must be built and maintained. Someone has to do work to make it.
If you expect someone else to do the work to provide these essentials, and for you to get the benefit of their work without compensating them, you're advocating theft. Or slavery.
Food, water, and shelter are never free. Even if they don't cost any money. I know because I've done the work to provide them (in primitive form) for myself from scratch before. There is always work involved.
You do have a right to food, water, and shelter-- but this only means no one has the right to prevent you from doing the work to provide them for yourself using property you have a right to use through ownership or an agreement with the owner. It doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to provide them for you at their expense.
This also means no one has a right to forbid you from planting crops in your front yard, collecting rainwater that runs off your roof, or living in a brush hut on your own land. A government position can't create such a right because such a right is a lie.
Part 3: Kobayashi Maru IslandIt began with a reply I made to someone who was claiming that since food, water, and shelter are essential for human life, those things were a human right and must be provided "free" for everyone. My response elicited a response from another commie who began by harping on the "right to life" thing.
I'll get into more of this in upcoming posts, but for now...
The right to life.
Yes, you have a right to your life.
The communist says this means your life must be guaranteed. Of course, sensible people know there is no guarantee.
He also claims this means you have a right to take whatever property-- even if it doesn't belong to you-- is necessary to stay alive. Need food? Steal it. Need water? Steal it. Need shelter? Steal it. You need it; it's yours to take.
I'm not sure how this works for the person you took it from, since he is now going to need whatever you took. Does he steal a replacement from someone else, or take back the property you now possess? A "society" based on theft doesn't seem like much of a society to me. But then, I'm not a communist.
Your right to life means simply that no one can have the right to murder you-- to kill you for any reason other than in defense of life, liberty, or property.
It doesn't mean anyone other than you is obligated to work to keep you alive. And it does take work to obtain the necessary property to stay alive. More on that next time.
Part 2: Free food, water, and shelter
Part 3: Kobayashi Maru Island
![]() |
| Found somewhere on the internet |
"How can we solve this or that problem? Oh, and you're not allowed to change anything that matters! That would be crazy!"