« Misunderstanding Job Creation | Main | Obama Riots – The last full measure of desperation (updated 17oct2011) »

13 October 2011


Todd Juvinall

We have missed your input. We have al gone over the top without your reins. Welcome back.

Bob Hobert

GR, I immediately suspected that "adiministrivia" was yet another ruse to get me to open my desktop Websters, something I seem to do regularly when reading your missives. Well, it worked again, even when you didn't mean to! Welcome back from your RV wi-fi black hole. How primitive!

Mikey McD

The Use of FORCE (collective) vs. Voluntary Action (individual)

Kudos to the various movements emerging in American politics (Tea Party, Occupy, etc). The Unites States needs to be having deep, rational and constructive conversations about solving the various crisis in America today. One can hope that the grassroots movements will require participation (though thought and action) of more Americans in the political process. Maybe, just maybe such movements will cure some of the pervasive apathy towards public policy.

As WE attempt to solve the almost countless crisis in America (continual unconstitutional wars, abominable education system, unethical/inequitable tax structure, debauchery of the US Dollar, unfunded liabilities, failing entitlement programs, central banker manipulations, etc etc) we need to debate the foundational values which will guide our solutions. The aforementioned movements set the stage for real, productive debates.

The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution seem to be a natural starting point for this conversation. Were these documents written to enable government or to protect the people from government?

When is the use of force moral? Every single law requires the use of force to implement; behind every law is a prison cell, policing body and ‘a gun.’ What are you willing to force upon another American knowing the punishments for his/her transgressions?

How much control should an individual American have in pursuing “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Should Americans have a choice (education, participation in entitlement program, diet, etc)? When should force be applied to members of society to attain “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

Should an individual be forced to participate in entitlement programs? Should an individual be forced to pay into and forced to participate in a failing education system? Should some individuals be forced to pay taxes while others are not? Should all Americans be forced to live under the manipulations of Central Bankers (The Federal Reserve)? Should all Americans be forced to contribute financially or otherwise to unconstitutional wars? What laws does our society believe moral enough to be back up by force?

Does individuality or collectivism provide a better foundation to live the promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

Should force continue to be available to the highest bidder (labor unions or corporations)?

Voluntary: proceeding from the will or from one’s own choice or consent.

Would the promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” be better served by the voluntary consent of each individual? Would the absence of force and the presence of voluntary actions drive the solutions demanded of both individuals and collectivists? Would competition through voluntary actions in everything from education to commerce allow individual freedoms to promote the values of society as a whole better than force?

Are the problems facing America the result of collective force or individual voluntary action?


Mikey McD

— Stefan Molyneux, “The Non-Aggression Principle”

“Systems based on fundamental falsehoods always get more and more complicated as endless corrections and adjustments pile on in order to make them look more right. Every few generations, these accumulated errors become so ridiculously complex that the entire system becomes unsustainable and…kind of embarrassing. Even the non-expert grasps that something must be fundamentally wrong with the whole mess. And a few brave souls take out a blank sheet of paper, push aside all their prior preconceptions and start from scratch, based on reason and evidence, rather than the accumulated errors of history.

The central tenet of all systems of human morality is the non-aggression principle. We all learn it as children: don’t hit, don’t push, don’t hurt, don’t steal. We learn that violence and bullying and threats are wrong, immoral, and only make whatever problem you’re trying to solve worse. That’s the rule we’re taught as kids, and it’s a good rule — solid, logical, empirical.

But then, when we get older, if we have the courage to see, we understand that this is not the way adult society is run at all. In adult society you have to pay a bunch of men your money or they call another bunch of men in blue costumes to come and take it. And if you try to defend yourself from this theft, they will shoot you. This is the reality of societies with governments. Your society.

The fundamental error [of statist societies] is the belief that violence is the best way to solve complex social problems. It’s the delusion that if you point enough guns at enough people, run up enough debt using the unborn as collateral, and kidnap and enslave enough free souls, that the world will just get better and better and better. How’s that working out for us?”

— Stefan Molyneux, “The Non-Aggression Principle”

Paul Emery


A well placed consumer strike would do more to correct corruption and greed than millions of feet on the street.

Paul Emery

And by the way thanks for the well written Libertarian treatise.

Mikey McD

The best way to protest in a free market is with your wallet. Thanks Paul.

Bob Hobert

Mickey, unlike many (most?) postings on this blog yours cause one to actually think.

The comments to this entry are closed.