As I watch my step kids play with their maps, it hit me like a bolt of lightning how ingrained in mankind the delusion of government is. The propaganda machine begins almost instantly in life. These kids, who are 2 and 3, are given these maps to play with, in order to teach them about the world and so forth. But these maps have all sorts of lines on them which don't exist on the earth. These lines are meant to separate the different states within the borders of the united states. The problem here is these states don't exist, and neither does the country that they are inside of.
Sure, there is a piece of land that is shaped just how the map shows, but where the borders between the states do not exist. When we travel from state to state, and pass where the borders on this map are drawn, we do not encounter anything but a sign to let us know... and that sign was made by man, not the Earth. There is no gigantic wall in place in which man had to alter to get through, there is no sort of portal which takes one to the next state, nor is there any other extraordinary obstacle in the nature of the earth which separates these states. There is ONLY a sign which reads something like "Welcome to Nebraska" or "Florida Welcomes You."
Indeed, if one looks at the Earth from space, one will not observe lines as they exist on a map. So why are they there?
Well, the answer to that is pretty well known. The lines are there to divide the jurisdiction of the different state governments. The sign that says "Welcome to Nebraska" is actually just communicating "You are now subject to the laws of the government which we have named 'Nebraska.'"
I will take a moment here to address a common objection to what I am saying. The argument is that these borders don't exist and neither does Nebraska; all that exists is the land and the people... they are really just things man has used his imagination to manufacture for his own reasons. Some people argue that if that is true, then Gold must not exist either, and that what does exist is the metal. It's true that "Gold" is but a name given to the metal, but the borders are nothing physical which can be touched at all! They are merely lines drawn on a map and signs on the road created by man... You can grab gold and touch it and feel its texture, you cannot touch a border and feel its texture. Again, borders are imaginary lines which cannot be felt in reality like metal can.
But at a young age, we are all taught that these states exist just as sure as gold exists. That is not the case. What really exists is land, lines on maps, and people with guns.
If you define government as I do, "an organization made up of people who claim for themselves the right to use aggressive force against peaceful individuals" then you must admit government to be a criminal organization. (If you are a new reader, I suggest checking out the links to the side and some of my older blog posts; I do not expect you to accept the definition I have given here at will)
So what are we doing when we talk about the different "countries" and the different "states" around the world? We are subjecting our interpretation of the world to the imaginations of criminals.
How radical does it sound for a person to say "I don't believe countries exist"? Because that is the truth, they do not exist. What exists is land and people with guns fighting over who gets to take advantage of the land and the people in a given area. And when we teach ourselves that these countries exist in reality, we accept borders at a very early age, and actually believe they are meaningful in some way. It is also easy for this to lead to the ideas of nationalism which are used to manipulate people into serving their "country" by killing others in its name, and pledging allegiance to it (which ultimately means pledging allegiance to that same group of criminals known as the government).
When I say I don't believe countries exist, what I'm saying is everything that divides these pieces of land up into separate countries, and in the end separates mankind as a whole, is made up by various different gangs, and I will not play along. I will not treat others around the world as different from me just because they were born on a different piece of land. As long as people believe these countries exist in reality and not in man's mind, the human species will always be divided.
As far as I am concerned, the belief in countries is no different than the belief and Santa Claus. Children are taught that this jolly fat man in a red suit brings presents every year in Christmas. Eventually, they find out that is not true, and it's really their parents doing all they can to give the best childhood possible.
Children are taught that countries and states exist, and that they are separated by borders. Rarely do they ever come to the same conclusion as with Santa; that these borders don't really exist, and that it's really different groups of thugs dividing land out for themselves. This, despite knowing that borders have changed time and again over time. If I say Santa doesn't exist, nobody would even acknowledge the statement having been made. If I say countries don't exist, well, that's another story for some reason.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The State is the Embodyment of Evil
Why is politics what it is? By that I mean, why do people get so upset and passionate when discussing their political ideas? We seem to be able to discuss any other topic without this sort of "us versus them" mentality that tells us "anyone who disagrees with us is 'bad'". Some have suggested parenting is just as bad as politics, but I'm not so sure about that. Anyways, there is no doubt that politics has this sort of affect on people. What is the big deal?
Ok, for those of you who just think I am some radical, off the wall utopian anarchist, this answer was one of the few things I took away in my college education, but a simple enough explanation to understand. The answer is Democracy is not all it is cracked up to be. Democracy is NOT about free choice or self government. It is about the elimination of free choice and self government. Every time the state makes a decision about how everyone is to behave, free choice is stolen away. Every tax dollar that goes to a government welfare program is charity dictated to the tax payer, instead of the tax payer getting to choose for himself what charities are worth putting money into. And the fact that these decisions are not freely made is simple to show. Choose not to pay your taxes and see what the consequences are. You may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later your wages will be garnished, or you will be put in prison, etc. So to answer our original question, politics is so dividing, and so able to inspire passion, because the government forces people to behave in a certain way with every decision they make.
Being forced means 1) it's not something you want to do and 2) you are NOT permitted to listen to your own conscience. But more importantly, to tell everyone in society that there exists this power to force the world to do what you want, to force your own world view on everyone, is sure to open competition between various groups as to what that world view should be. It is ludicrous to think there will ever be any agreement on such an end, which is why those competing for power will always be there.
And since state power always means force, or coercive power, every expansion of state power is the expansion of coercion. If the state is going to take care of medical bills, the state must coerce others, known as taxpayers, to pay for everyone's medical bills. There is no way of getting around that issue... even Barack Obama said that what separates the state from other entities is the "monopoly on violence." So, is coercion good or bad? Of course it is bad. Yet it is the tool which the state must use with everything they do. Because of this, the state spreads negativity even when the people who support it have good aims in mind.
I'll say it again: The State Operates By Forcing Peaceful People To Take Some Action, Or Prevents Them From Taking Some Action Every Time They Expand. Coercing peaceful people is the very definition of crime, and I would argue the very definition of evil... and that is how the state operates on a day to day basis, without batting an eye.
Ok, for those of you who just think I am some radical, off the wall utopian anarchist, this answer was one of the few things I took away in my college education, but a simple enough explanation to understand. The answer is Democracy is not all it is cracked up to be. Democracy is NOT about free choice or self government. It is about the elimination of free choice and self government. Every time the state makes a decision about how everyone is to behave, free choice is stolen away. Every tax dollar that goes to a government welfare program is charity dictated to the tax payer, instead of the tax payer getting to choose for himself what charities are worth putting money into. And the fact that these decisions are not freely made is simple to show. Choose not to pay your taxes and see what the consequences are. You may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later your wages will be garnished, or you will be put in prison, etc. So to answer our original question, politics is so dividing, and so able to inspire passion, because the government forces people to behave in a certain way with every decision they make.
Being forced means 1) it's not something you want to do and 2) you are NOT permitted to listen to your own conscience. But more importantly, to tell everyone in society that there exists this power to force the world to do what you want, to force your own world view on everyone, is sure to open competition between various groups as to what that world view should be. It is ludicrous to think there will ever be any agreement on such an end, which is why those competing for power will always be there.
And since state power always means force, or coercive power, every expansion of state power is the expansion of coercion. If the state is going to take care of medical bills, the state must coerce others, known as taxpayers, to pay for everyone's medical bills. There is no way of getting around that issue... even Barack Obama said that what separates the state from other entities is the "monopoly on violence." So, is coercion good or bad? Of course it is bad. Yet it is the tool which the state must use with everything they do. Because of this, the state spreads negativity even when the people who support it have good aims in mind.
I'll say it again: The State Operates By Forcing Peaceful People To Take Some Action, Or Prevents Them From Taking Some Action Every Time They Expand. Coercing peaceful people is the very definition of crime, and I would argue the very definition of evil... and that is how the state operates on a day to day basis, without batting an eye.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Capitalism is Socialism, Socialism is Capitalism
People do not refer to a dictionary every time they learn the meaning of a word... most words can be defined by looking at context in which they are used, and as a result, we have people using the same words with various different meanings. For the purposes of this article, let me define the terms Capitalism and Socialism, in order to make my point.
Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands. In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.
Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned. The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.
From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words. These two definition are virtually identical.
The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business. The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production. Business and production are the same thing. Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product. Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption. Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning.
If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned? After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control. Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not. As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality. Ownership is about control. If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things? Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet.
Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control. Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately? And who among us really knows anyways? Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for. It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...
If these two systems are the same, why the conflict? Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice. But these two systems are really not the same. There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work. Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control.
The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers. In fact, that is what fascism is about. Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property. As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word. In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions. There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people. Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service.
In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law.
So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing? Technically no, but operationally yes. Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism. Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler). Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership. Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do.
The lesson here: define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts. Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country.
---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---
Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands. In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.
Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned. The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.
From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words. These two definition are virtually identical.
The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business. The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production. Business and production are the same thing. Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product. Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption. Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning.
If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned? After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control. Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not. As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality. Ownership is about control. If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things? Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet.
Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control. Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately? And who among us really knows anyways? Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for. It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...
If these two systems are the same, why the conflict? Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice. But these two systems are really not the same. There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work. Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control.
The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers. In fact, that is what fascism is about. Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property. As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word. In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions. There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people. Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service.
In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law.
So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing? Technically no, but operationally yes. Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism. Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler). Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership. Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do.
The lesson here: define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts. Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country.
---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---
Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension
Where does tension come from, and how does it build? Tension comes from conflict. No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension. The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved. This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves. Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant.
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Sunday, January 15, 2012
In Defense of Praxeology as a Science
Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation. The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier. The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world. Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them. An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying a purpose. If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Little Something To Consider About Jesus
At best I consider myself to be a Quaker. I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision. But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
- Turning Water into Wine
- The miracle of draught of fishes
- The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
- Walking on water
- Transfiguration of Jesus
- Calming the storm
- Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
- The Cursing of the Fig Tree
- He knew he was going to be betrayed
- Raising of Lazarus
- His own Resurrection
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Why Limited Government Inevitably Grows
Since we are in a minority, I don't make it a hobby of arguing with other libertarians, but I feel this is something I must share.
The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property. Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.
Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value. This is not entirely accurate. What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality. After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer. (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)
The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does. "who will protect us from criminals?" "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...
Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state." Both people are consumers of anxiety relief. And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action. "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security. Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts. Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.
Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source. The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.
If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state. An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you. The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.
The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property. Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.
Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value. This is not entirely accurate. What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality. After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer. (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)
The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does. "who will protect us from criminals?" "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...
Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state." Both people are consumers of anxiety relief. And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action. "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security. Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts. Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.
Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source. The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.
If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state. An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you. The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
How Everyone can see Their Candidate Elected
It's true! There is not a single election that has ever required winners and losers. Every politician who runs for office can win any given election, and be replaced at any time the public disapproves of the job they are doing. How is this so?
Like everything else in social relations, voluntary interaction is superior to force. Those who want to follow Barack Obama, and let him decide what they will do, should be free to do so. If you want to follow Mitt Romney, and let him make your decisions for you, by all means, do as he says... but you're not permitted to force others to do the same, as such a use of force would clearly be considered a crime in a free society. Only defensive force is legitimate in a free society. If you want to follow Ron Paul, you are probably a hypocrite... (just a little joke to my fellow libertarians, as most of us would rather not have any "leaders").
I believe, despite what many libertarians and anarchists say, there will never be a society totally without leaders. Anyone who engages in any kind of education at all has leaders, and learning is a never ending thing in human existence. In a voluntary society, those with the most followers are those whom society choose to follow. In a society governed by the state, the majority are forced to obey those who have the most support during the election process. That George W. Bush's approval rating went literally to single digits had no impact as to whether or not he was to continue in his role as "our" leader. In a voluntary society, nobody would be forced to continue obeying the commands of a leader whom they lost respect for.
If there is a group who wants to follow Barack Obama and his staff, and have a healthcare system based on his allegedly wise instruction, they should be free to. If there is another group who wants to follow the medical wisdom of someone like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, they should be free to do so... Voluntary obedience allows everyone to get what they want. Who knows, it just might be that trying multiple ideas at once would be a great strategy for society to determine the most positive course of action.
After all, a population the size of the United States' is bound to come up with great numbers of supporters for multiple candidates for any national office, especially the presidency. But who really has the right to say "everyone must follow the Santorum plan of action"? Or any other plan of action for that matter. Nobody does. If I choose to follow X, it can be deduced that I like and support the ideas of X. The same can be said for every other individual in the world... being free to choose allows us all to get what we want. Your candidate, or maybe even you, will never lose an election again. Want to jump into the race? Start spreading a message and plan of action and see if you get voted in... Just imagine the endless ideas that society could benefit from if only we were free to choose for ourselves, rather than fighting with each other... (and by the way, when the aim is to get someone with the power to make everyone's decisions, the fighting will never stop... it is inevitible that 330,000,000 people will not have a consensus on who leads, and as you may have read in my earlier blog, forcing others always means literally attacking the lives of others).
I will leave the reader with something to ponder. If obedience is based on force, how good is the leader? What kind of virtues do leaders who have to get obedience by forcing imprisonment really have? If our election process were based on voluntary interactions, isn't it at least plausible that the leaders to choose from would have more virtue, more value to offer? In politics, there is no need to debate things such as "Obama's qualities versus Perry's qualities" or whatever combination... but only to say, I should be free to follow whom I choose, and you should be free to follow whom you choose, and nobody should have the right to force anyone to follow anybody they don't freely choose.
Like everything else in social relations, voluntary interaction is superior to force. Those who want to follow Barack Obama, and let him decide what they will do, should be free to do so. If you want to follow Mitt Romney, and let him make your decisions for you, by all means, do as he says... but you're not permitted to force others to do the same, as such a use of force would clearly be considered a crime in a free society. Only defensive force is legitimate in a free society. If you want to follow Ron Paul, you are probably a hypocrite... (just a little joke to my fellow libertarians, as most of us would rather not have any "leaders").
I believe, despite what many libertarians and anarchists say, there will never be a society totally without leaders. Anyone who engages in any kind of education at all has leaders, and learning is a never ending thing in human existence. In a voluntary society, those with the most followers are those whom society choose to follow. In a society governed by the state, the majority are forced to obey those who have the most support during the election process. That George W. Bush's approval rating went literally to single digits had no impact as to whether or not he was to continue in his role as "our" leader. In a voluntary society, nobody would be forced to continue obeying the commands of a leader whom they lost respect for.
If there is a group who wants to follow Barack Obama and his staff, and have a healthcare system based on his allegedly wise instruction, they should be free to. If there is another group who wants to follow the medical wisdom of someone like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, they should be free to do so... Voluntary obedience allows everyone to get what they want. Who knows, it just might be that trying multiple ideas at once would be a great strategy for society to determine the most positive course of action.
After all, a population the size of the United States' is bound to come up with great numbers of supporters for multiple candidates for any national office, especially the presidency. But who really has the right to say "everyone must follow the Santorum plan of action"? Or any other plan of action for that matter. Nobody does. If I choose to follow X, it can be deduced that I like and support the ideas of X. The same can be said for every other individual in the world... being free to choose allows us all to get what we want. Your candidate, or maybe even you, will never lose an election again. Want to jump into the race? Start spreading a message and plan of action and see if you get voted in... Just imagine the endless ideas that society could benefit from if only we were free to choose for ourselves, rather than fighting with each other... (and by the way, when the aim is to get someone with the power to make everyone's decisions, the fighting will never stop... it is inevitible that 330,000,000 people will not have a consensus on who leads, and as you may have read in my earlier blog, forcing others always means literally attacking the lives of others).
I will leave the reader with something to ponder. If obedience is based on force, how good is the leader? What kind of virtues do leaders who have to get obedience by forcing imprisonment really have? If our election process were based on voluntary interactions, isn't it at least plausible that the leaders to choose from would have more virtue, more value to offer? In politics, there is no need to debate things such as "Obama's qualities versus Perry's qualities" or whatever combination... but only to say, I should be free to follow whom I choose, and you should be free to follow whom you choose, and nobody should have the right to force anyone to follow anybody they don't freely choose.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Statism breeds violence, Anarchy breeds peace
The most popular thought on Anarchy is that everyone would act like savages and civilization would literally crumble before our feet. I have been sort of a student of human nature for a while now (I have a BS in Criminal Justice and am a student of the "Austrian" school of economics, which relies heavily on Praxeology in its methodology) and wish to offer an different perspective.
All human actions are ultimately directed by human thoughts and valuations. That is to say, it is psychological.
I have observed that most people are polite in civilized society. Please and Thank You are quite common, holding doors open for handicapped and the elderly... hell, just to be polite, is something I observe on a daily basis. Obeying the wishes of property owners is also something that happens with almost automatic reflex.
Indeed, if anyone needs to hear a testimony of how much embedded manners and good conduct are in society, ask anyone who works retail about their customers. They will most likely complain about all the pet peeves they have seen during the day, all the little things they find annoying that people do, and they may even talk about how badly they wanted to quit or tell someone to leave their store. However, in the vast majority of cases, they respond by treating all their customers with respect. True, the incentive is not to get fired, but interaction with such people and under such circumstances is something that only happens during the work day. Nobody is forced to spend time with people they find particularly annoying, so this is not evidence that chaos would breakout without the state, but it is evidence of incentive to be polite when you have to.
Approximately 1/3 of income taxes are implemented to give out welfare benefits. That is an enormous amount of money being stolen from people. Are we to believe that a polite society would be reduced to the a massive amount of people taking up arms against others in order to fund their welfare benefits? There is no reason to suspect such a thing would happen. I have not observed a movement of people on food stamps picking up weapons and going to maybe some of the nicer areas closeby and attempting to set up a forceful system of more benefits.
It is clear that what really happens is the State operates as a conduit for people to support the use of force, who otherwise would not. Most supporters of welfare programs are not people who would themselves pick up a gun and go to the homes of others and demand some of their money, yet this is precisely what the state does in their name.
It is the state that justifies violence, with the help of people who support the it. Most believe the state is a necessary evil... and that is how it is justified; through the notion that evil is necessary... that force can be justified somehow. Without this justification, the amount of violence in society would clearly diminish. To say that all evil is unnecessary and unjustified, the amount of evil would shrink, because actions follow thoughts... and since actions follow thoughts, the thought that evil is unjustified would lead to less evil actions.
Statism is unnecessary, unjustified, and unwanted.
All human actions are ultimately directed by human thoughts and valuations. That is to say, it is psychological.
I have observed that most people are polite in civilized society. Please and Thank You are quite common, holding doors open for handicapped and the elderly... hell, just to be polite, is something I observe on a daily basis. Obeying the wishes of property owners is also something that happens with almost automatic reflex.
Indeed, if anyone needs to hear a testimony of how much embedded manners and good conduct are in society, ask anyone who works retail about their customers. They will most likely complain about all the pet peeves they have seen during the day, all the little things they find annoying that people do, and they may even talk about how badly they wanted to quit or tell someone to leave their store. However, in the vast majority of cases, they respond by treating all their customers with respect. True, the incentive is not to get fired, but interaction with such people and under such circumstances is something that only happens during the work day. Nobody is forced to spend time with people they find particularly annoying, so this is not evidence that chaos would breakout without the state, but it is evidence of incentive to be polite when you have to.
Approximately 1/3 of income taxes are implemented to give out welfare benefits. That is an enormous amount of money being stolen from people. Are we to believe that a polite society would be reduced to the a massive amount of people taking up arms against others in order to fund their welfare benefits? There is no reason to suspect such a thing would happen. I have not observed a movement of people on food stamps picking up weapons and going to maybe some of the nicer areas closeby and attempting to set up a forceful system of more benefits.
It is clear that what really happens is the State operates as a conduit for people to support the use of force, who otherwise would not. Most supporters of welfare programs are not people who would themselves pick up a gun and go to the homes of others and demand some of their money, yet this is precisely what the state does in their name.
It is the state that justifies violence, with the help of people who support the it. Most believe the state is a necessary evil... and that is how it is justified; through the notion that evil is necessary... that force can be justified somehow. Without this justification, the amount of violence in society would clearly diminish. To say that all evil is unnecessary and unjustified, the amount of evil would shrink, because actions follow thoughts... and since actions follow thoughts, the thought that evil is unjustified would lead to less evil actions.
Statism is unnecessary, unjustified, and unwanted.
Thoughts on Criminology Part II - Measuring Crime and an Alternative to Authoritarian Law
In the first part, I stated that a crime ought be defined as any forcible
exertion of will against another's property. Although the state operates as the monopoly of force in a given geographical location (border), not everything the state does need be considered a crime.
I defined crime as a matter of forcing one's will against another and their property because it interferes with the right of a person to live their life. It logically follows that during the time the action of the crime is taking place that the victim of the crime has the right to use defensive force to protect his life against the unwanted intrusion of the criminal. Therefore, when members of the state, or anyone in general for that matter, operate in such a way that protects a victim from a criminal (such as apprehending a thief in a store or preventing a rapist from attacking someone, and all other criminal acts against innocent people) a noble deed has been done.
However, the state itself infringes on the lives of innocent people. Taxation is just another word for theft committed at large by the state. Wars that involve "collateral damage" define the state as an entity of people who commit murder (even assuming the war is justified in some way). The state is also known for what is called eminent domain; an action that involves members of the state seizing land from innocent people for the ends the government has in mind. The drug war has lead to force being used against people who have done nothing more than use or possess things members of the state do not think they should, regardless of whether the user has actually harmed anyone else.
Logically, it goes to show that multiple crimes are being committed at every second of every day, by the state alone. every arrest made against someone who has not committed a crime against another (popularly referred to as a victimless crime) is a crime. Every sales tax paid, income tax collected, contraband arrest, speeding ticket given... the amount of crime and force in society by the state alone is off the chart.
To realistically measure the amount of crime, one must take the number of forceful acts against peaceful people committed by the state in conjunction with acts against peaceful people committed by private citizens.
Most people I have met often say "but what is the alternative" when confronted with the criminal nature of the state. Or say "it's not perfect, but that's life" to the same issue.
True, it's not perfect, and there will never be a perfect system of government... but do we really want an entity like the state, who's job is to monopolize and magnify the imperfections of humanity?
To the second problem, finding an alternative, I have found that most people like to sound like they're being logical in making this complaint, but when the alternative is presented, they prove that they are usually just acting out of anxiety. Nevertheless, if you truly are interested in alternatives to top-down authroitarian law, I would recommend looking into customary law.
Customary law, being an alternative to authoritarian law, is essentially a voluntary form of law. Private arbitrators make decisions in which the plaintiff pays for, whereas the defendant can choose to show up or not show up, comply or not comply. The check on the defendant is the rest of society. As ALREADY HAPPENS with merchant law, still practiced today, those who are unwilling to comply are ostracized by the rest of the community. Imagine trying to go the market place and buy goods, only to find nobody will trade with you. Could you imagine being a business man and having everyone whom you trade with turn their backs on you? In such a situation, failure to comply would mean failure to get gas for your car, food for your stomach, etc.
There also remains the idea that Insurance companies, due to their profession in risk assessment and asset protection, would provide policing/security, and the idea of private communities forming where the property owners make the funding of protective services as a requirement of living in the neighborhood. Let's not forget neighborhood watch programs.
Perhaps the most important thing in all these situations is that the community really does have to be much more together in the decision making. There would be much more solidarity than what exists when the state steps in and makes laws and forces everyone to behave in this or that way. Not to mention the complete lack of all the corrupt things we do not want with authoritarian law (the taxes, eminent domain issues, arbitrarily locking people up for possessing the wrong things, etc.) AND, due to the voluntary nature, members of society COULD sort of ostracize unwanted people who haven't committed crimes, such as drug users.
Customary/voluntary law is the true socialized man's choice. Authoritarian law in many cases only demands a minority of politically engaged people bind together and tell everyone else in society what to do. Customary law is based on the feelings of those in society as a whole, and how they interact, and more importantly, what they think. Who has more virtue; Those who want to force others to do the right thing, or those who wish to convince others of the virtue of doing the right thing?
It should be noted that this is an imperfect and abbreviated description of customary law, so if you think of something here or there that would not be attended to, consider doing more research rather than just relying on my blog. But keep in mind, other people are thinking people too, and things may be better if they are free to think and act on what you believe to be just, rather than being restrained by arbitrary authoritarian laws.
I defined crime as a matter of forcing one's will against another and their property because it interferes with the right of a person to live their life. It logically follows that during the time the action of the crime is taking place that the victim of the crime has the right to use defensive force to protect his life against the unwanted intrusion of the criminal. Therefore, when members of the state, or anyone in general for that matter, operate in such a way that protects a victim from a criminal (such as apprehending a thief in a store or preventing a rapist from attacking someone, and all other criminal acts against innocent people) a noble deed has been done.
However, the state itself infringes on the lives of innocent people. Taxation is just another word for theft committed at large by the state. Wars that involve "collateral damage" define the state as an entity of people who commit murder (even assuming the war is justified in some way). The state is also known for what is called eminent domain; an action that involves members of the state seizing land from innocent people for the ends the government has in mind. The drug war has lead to force being used against people who have done nothing more than use or possess things members of the state do not think they should, regardless of whether the user has actually harmed anyone else.
Logically, it goes to show that multiple crimes are being committed at every second of every day, by the state alone. every arrest made against someone who has not committed a crime against another (popularly referred to as a victimless crime) is a crime. Every sales tax paid, income tax collected, contraband arrest, speeding ticket given... the amount of crime and force in society by the state alone is off the chart.
To realistically measure the amount of crime, one must take the number of forceful acts against peaceful people committed by the state in conjunction with acts against peaceful people committed by private citizens.
Most people I have met often say "but what is the alternative" when confronted with the criminal nature of the state. Or say "it's not perfect, but that's life" to the same issue.
True, it's not perfect, and there will never be a perfect system of government... but do we really want an entity like the state, who's job is to monopolize and magnify the imperfections of humanity?
To the second problem, finding an alternative, I have found that most people like to sound like they're being logical in making this complaint, but when the alternative is presented, they prove that they are usually just acting out of anxiety. Nevertheless, if you truly are interested in alternatives to top-down authroitarian law, I would recommend looking into customary law.
Customary law, being an alternative to authoritarian law, is essentially a voluntary form of law. Private arbitrators make decisions in which the plaintiff pays for, whereas the defendant can choose to show up or not show up, comply or not comply. The check on the defendant is the rest of society. As ALREADY HAPPENS with merchant law, still practiced today, those who are unwilling to comply are ostracized by the rest of the community. Imagine trying to go the market place and buy goods, only to find nobody will trade with you. Could you imagine being a business man and having everyone whom you trade with turn their backs on you? In such a situation, failure to comply would mean failure to get gas for your car, food for your stomach, etc.
There also remains the idea that Insurance companies, due to their profession in risk assessment and asset protection, would provide policing/security, and the idea of private communities forming where the property owners make the funding of protective services as a requirement of living in the neighborhood. Let's not forget neighborhood watch programs.
Perhaps the most important thing in all these situations is that the community really does have to be much more together in the decision making. There would be much more solidarity than what exists when the state steps in and makes laws and forces everyone to behave in this or that way. Not to mention the complete lack of all the corrupt things we do not want with authoritarian law (the taxes, eminent domain issues, arbitrarily locking people up for possessing the wrong things, etc.) AND, due to the voluntary nature, members of society COULD sort of ostracize unwanted people who haven't committed crimes, such as drug users.
Customary/voluntary law is the true socialized man's choice. Authoritarian law in many cases only demands a minority of politically engaged people bind together and tell everyone else in society what to do. Customary law is based on the feelings of those in society as a whole, and how they interact, and more importantly, what they think. Who has more virtue; Those who want to force others to do the right thing, or those who wish to convince others of the virtue of doing the right thing?
It should be noted that this is an imperfect and abbreviated description of customary law, so if you think of something here or there that would not be attended to, consider doing more research rather than just relying on my blog. But keep in mind, other people are thinking people too, and things may be better if they are free to think and act on what you believe to be just, rather than being restrained by arbitrary authoritarian laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)