For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person. Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart. The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.
Drugs are completely destructive. In my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives. The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy. It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better. Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?
So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful! we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society." Fine. This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs. So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...
BUT
There is a problem with the drug war. It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people. Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified. Everyone gets this. As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint. His actions are not causing me harm. The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell.
So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force. The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets.
"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"
Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs. What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope. He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs).
This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems.
In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know. At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin.
Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.
Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical. The knowledge must be applied.
Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical. The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.
Knowledge includes moral principles. Most people get this principle in Kindergarten. Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie... Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The logic behind the NAP is very simple: Man is a limited being. Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life. Man deals with reality the best he can. Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives. If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things. If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live. <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit. A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action. A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to." And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar. These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it.
The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles. Most of the confusion here rests with government. Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail." Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP. Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail." When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force!
Force can only be aggressive or defensive. These two categories are not hard to see at all... Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking. However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known.
To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards. Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
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---
Monday, January 9, 2012
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.
Friday, December 23, 2011
If you can speak, then you already know better than to support the state!
There are many things in life that we do without even thinking about it. It can be very easy to dismiss some of these things as trivial and meaningless... perhaps even as unable to teach us anything about life and our understanding of it. For example, most people do not consciously think about the fact that they can in fact think...
When it comes to speaking, most people don't consider what knowledge can be derived from the fact that we can make sounds with our mouths to communicate ideas. One reason for this is because we know these sounds to mean definite things or ideas that we assume others,who speak our same language, can identify with. If I say "book", you probably know I am talking about something that can be read. You also probably know that I do not mean a newspaper, magazine, or blog. You are able to distinguish the characteristics of "book" from the characteristics of everything else in the universe. If you could not at least make a generalization of objects, speaking would be useless. It does one no good to say "book" when the receiver of the message "book" doesn't know it from that of "star" or "worm", etc. What is truly amazing is this is even true when there is a language barrier.
My own trip to China was a prime example of this. Now, the Chinese for the most part had no idea what I meant by "bathroom", but they did know that I was looking for something specific, with definite characteristics. Often times when looking for something, or trying to obtain something, where the language barrier was present, playing charades and drawing pictures proved to be extremely helpful. It's true that there was occasion where miscommunications occured, but the point is, each person knew that the other was looking for something with specific characteristics, and even for a specific purpose.
When we think of the State, or "government", we often think about justice, and what it means. Almost universally, the government is expected to seek out those who harm others and get retribution, or protect the peaceful from the aggressions of others. These two deeds are noble enough. The rapist must pay for his crimes. The thief ought to return what he has stolen. But these are not the only characteristics of the State.
While the State may offer protective services, it survives completely by threatening people in society with imprisonment for refusing to fund them through taxation. They strive to fine those for driving too fast, having the wrong vegetation, and countless other crimes which are completely victimless. In fact, some stats report as high as 86% of the prison community being filled with those who have never harmed another. And since justice inherently involves protecting those who have never harmed another from those willing to harm, we must conclude that the State has characteristics that are more inclined towards injustice rather than justice. But why should we come to this finding when on occasion the State does do something to help the peaceful?
Because there are no contradictions in reality. A tree cannot be a tree and also be a pen. A pair of scissors cannot be a spoon at the same time it is a pair of scissors; there are no square circles. Hence, an organization that survives through coercive methods against peaceful people cannot be an entity of justice just because it provides protection once in a while (it is most likely the case that the protection it offers is more about beating the competition, as the State claims for itself a monopoly on coercion in society). But if speaking is all one needs to do, why is the State supported? I have 3 theories.
1) It is most likely the case that the state is supported, not because people actively want it, but because they value the hardship of going against it less than they value going on with life and just putting up with it.
2) Anxiety occurs whenever one proposes abolishing the state. If the state doesn't provide protection (which, as we have seen, the state is not even an entity of protection) then nobody will and chaos will occur. This is really just a knee jerk reaction. Anyone who understands subjective theory of value, voluntarism, and entrepreneurship knows that protection services can and would occur in a pure market society, and they would actually be protection services.
3) As stated in the beginning of this blog, most people don't think about these things. For sure, it takes more than simple thought to overcome our prejudice in favor of statism, but sitting down and giving the matter serious thought is a terrific starting place... perhaps the only starting place, and there are many who will never do it.
It is my sincere hope that with the United States in the economic condition that it's in, with all the wars spreading, loss of liberties (we now have a president who says he can assassinate American citizens if he is suspicious of them, the U.S. being defined as a battleground, and indefinite detainment without due process whatsoever) that more people will start to think about these matters.
If you can speak, you know enough to reject an institution claiming a monopoly on coercion as being an institution of justice.
When it comes to speaking, most people don't consider what knowledge can be derived from the fact that we can make sounds with our mouths to communicate ideas. One reason for this is because we know these sounds to mean definite things or ideas that we assume others,who speak our same language, can identify with. If I say "book", you probably know I am talking about something that can be read. You also probably know that I do not mean a newspaper, magazine, or blog. You are able to distinguish the characteristics of "book" from the characteristics of everything else in the universe. If you could not at least make a generalization of objects, speaking would be useless. It does one no good to say "book" when the receiver of the message "book" doesn't know it from that of "star" or "worm", etc. What is truly amazing is this is even true when there is a language barrier.
My own trip to China was a prime example of this. Now, the Chinese for the most part had no idea what I meant by "bathroom", but they did know that I was looking for something specific, with definite characteristics. Often times when looking for something, or trying to obtain something, where the language barrier was present, playing charades and drawing pictures proved to be extremely helpful. It's true that there was occasion where miscommunications occured, but the point is, each person knew that the other was looking for something with specific characteristics, and even for a specific purpose.
When we think of the State, or "government", we often think about justice, and what it means. Almost universally, the government is expected to seek out those who harm others and get retribution, or protect the peaceful from the aggressions of others. These two deeds are noble enough. The rapist must pay for his crimes. The thief ought to return what he has stolen. But these are not the only characteristics of the State.
While the State may offer protective services, it survives completely by threatening people in society with imprisonment for refusing to fund them through taxation. They strive to fine those for driving too fast, having the wrong vegetation, and countless other crimes which are completely victimless. In fact, some stats report as high as 86% of the prison community being filled with those who have never harmed another. And since justice inherently involves protecting those who have never harmed another from those willing to harm, we must conclude that the State has characteristics that are more inclined towards injustice rather than justice. But why should we come to this finding when on occasion the State does do something to help the peaceful?
Because there are no contradictions in reality. A tree cannot be a tree and also be a pen. A pair of scissors cannot be a spoon at the same time it is a pair of scissors; there are no square circles. Hence, an organization that survives through coercive methods against peaceful people cannot be an entity of justice just because it provides protection once in a while (it is most likely the case that the protection it offers is more about beating the competition, as the State claims for itself a monopoly on coercion in society). But if speaking is all one needs to do, why is the State supported? I have 3 theories.
1) It is most likely the case that the state is supported, not because people actively want it, but because they value the hardship of going against it less than they value going on with life and just putting up with it.
2) Anxiety occurs whenever one proposes abolishing the state. If the state doesn't provide protection (which, as we have seen, the state is not even an entity of protection) then nobody will and chaos will occur. This is really just a knee jerk reaction. Anyone who understands subjective theory of value, voluntarism, and entrepreneurship knows that protection services can and would occur in a pure market society, and they would actually be protection services.
3) As stated in the beginning of this blog, most people don't think about these things. For sure, it takes more than simple thought to overcome our prejudice in favor of statism, but sitting down and giving the matter serious thought is a terrific starting place... perhaps the only starting place, and there are many who will never do it.
It is my sincere hope that with the United States in the economic condition that it's in, with all the wars spreading, loss of liberties (we now have a president who says he can assassinate American citizens if he is suspicious of them, the U.S. being defined as a battleground, and indefinite detainment without due process whatsoever) that more people will start to think about these matters.
If you can speak, you know enough to reject an institution claiming a monopoly on coercion as being an institution of justice.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Free-Market-Security
Recently I began reading a book dealing with security in an anarcho-capitalist world. The author, whom I will not reveal, was writing as if he had to make the case that security would be better in a market setting due to competition and peaceful incentives inherent in the marketplace. While this is all good, it got me wondering: why do libertarians/voluntaryists/anarchists feel the need to make the case for SUPERIOR security in the marketplace at all?
The case against the state rests on the fact that it does not provide security at all, but at best protects itself from others who would like to loot you. Police investigate robberies, burglaries, murders, etc. while being engaged in imminent domain, coercive taxation, and using force up to the point of murder if necessary to get compliance. If you don't think this is so, refuse to pay taxes for a while. Should any government agent ever come to you face-to-face, resist their infringement upon your property as you would any "private" thief, and see what happens. Or for that matter, resist the police officer who stops you for driving too fast as you would a private person. Without the uniform and badge, these people would appear absolutely insane for trying to stop people for driving faster than what they believe to be safe. But should you resist the person who wears a badge, they get to do whatever is necessary to control you in the name of self-defense.
So why are we more scared of police officers than we are average citizens? After all, a badge is not anything special, and it is possible to drive carrying a weapon of our own. The answer clearly is because the state will send an endless army after you should you escape, in the name of justice and defense of course.
So to sum up, the state does not provide security. The state, as Spooner pointed out, is worse than the highwayman who continually robs you at gun point, since its members believe its force is justified. Any "protective" measures provided are simply measures against their competition in controlling you. What other conclusion could one come up with when analyzing an organization that both claims the right to control you, and claims the want to protect you from people who wish to control you...?
So if you believe in a free market setting for government protection services, don't forget to argue that such services wouldn't only be better in a marketplace setting, but they are non-existent within the state.
I have also noticed a second inherent fallacy in those who argue against a marketplace for security. When the idea of competing insurance companies comes up, almost inevitably the case against it includes the idea that these insurance companies would become states themselves. So the worry about abolishing the state is that private companies might one day take on the characteristics of the state. In other words, the big worry is we might get what we have today. What a completely absurd thing to argue indeed! And to protect against getting what we already have, I suppose to this line of reasoning, is for everyone to submit to a monopolistic state, cutting out the road from freedom to serfdom, and just accepting serfdom from the get-g0!
The case against the state rests on the fact that it does not provide security at all, but at best protects itself from others who would like to loot you. Police investigate robberies, burglaries, murders, etc. while being engaged in imminent domain, coercive taxation, and using force up to the point of murder if necessary to get compliance. If you don't think this is so, refuse to pay taxes for a while. Should any government agent ever come to you face-to-face, resist their infringement upon your property as you would any "private" thief, and see what happens. Or for that matter, resist the police officer who stops you for driving too fast as you would a private person. Without the uniform and badge, these people would appear absolutely insane for trying to stop people for driving faster than what they believe to be safe. But should you resist the person who wears a badge, they get to do whatever is necessary to control you in the name of self-defense.
So why are we more scared of police officers than we are average citizens? After all, a badge is not anything special, and it is possible to drive carrying a weapon of our own. The answer clearly is because the state will send an endless army after you should you escape, in the name of justice and defense of course.
So to sum up, the state does not provide security. The state, as Spooner pointed out, is worse than the highwayman who continually robs you at gun point, since its members believe its force is justified. Any "protective" measures provided are simply measures against their competition in controlling you. What other conclusion could one come up with when analyzing an organization that both claims the right to control you, and claims the want to protect you from people who wish to control you...?
So if you believe in a free market setting for government protection services, don't forget to argue that such services wouldn't only be better in a marketplace setting, but they are non-existent within the state.
I have also noticed a second inherent fallacy in those who argue against a marketplace for security. When the idea of competing insurance companies comes up, almost inevitably the case against it includes the idea that these insurance companies would become states themselves. So the worry about abolishing the state is that private companies might one day take on the characteristics of the state. In other words, the big worry is we might get what we have today. What a completely absurd thing to argue indeed! And to protect against getting what we already have, I suppose to this line of reasoning, is for everyone to submit to a monopolistic state, cutting out the road from freedom to serfdom, and just accepting serfdom from the get-g0!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)