Punching holes in statism, without hurting feelings- I hope

July 29, 3:17 PMAlbuquerque Libertarian ExaminerKent McManigal

Previous Next

15 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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

Without further ado, I give you reader DLH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the final attempt at a coup de grace:

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

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