One Law

Re-thinking governance. We only need one law - the Non-Aggression Principle - the foundation of libertarianism - to maximize justice, peace, and prosperity.

by

Is This the Best We Can Do?

From-Aristocracy-to-Monarchy-to-Democracy1000pxI suspect that most democratically-minded people have never stopped to think that democracy may not be what it’s cracked up to be. Perhaps, it too is a historical stepping stone to something better?

After all, at least in the United States, we’re brought up, educated and then repetitively reinforced through a myriad of media types and sources that representative democracy is the epitome of all available systems of governance. So good in fact, that we’re somehow morally justified in forcing it on others.

However, if it hadn’t occurred to some before, then after watching the last several months of the U.S. presidential electoral process, I also suspect that more folks may now be wondering just what the hell has happened to this country and perhaps with the democratic model as a whole.

So, looking under the hood:  is representative democracy the best we can do?

And if not, what would we trade it for?  Right?  Because if we’re going to complain, then we better have a solution …and in the case of social re-organization, a damn good one for sure!

For many of the politically and non-politically minded, that may sound like a non-issue (probably mostly for the reasons above).  For others, struggling for something deeper – whatever that may mean individually – and willing to think outside of the current political box (for you Constitutionalists, see the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence – you have the right and arguably the obligation to test fundamentals) that question can really inspire some passionate discussion; the type that could well overtake and ruin a good Thanksgiving dinner!

Nonetheless, at some point, like daily! …we need to continually recognize and remember that social organization has been in constant evolution since time immemorial and with the decentralization in informational resources, communications; and soon, energy and money, then this evolution will most certainly quicken to a pace unknown in human history.

And, as disruptive is that process has tended to be, in the long run it has proven better for the greater mass of humanity than not, but there is still obviously much room for improvement.

This social and political evolution …and a suggested solution (a likely inevitable one)… is very nicely illustrated and supported in the succinct and very readable:

From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy — A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist theorist/philosopher, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute, founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society.

It’s a fantastic little book! If you are not familiar with Mr. Hoppe and you are open-minded and desirous of moving toward a social organization which far better supports the free and peaceful movement of people, ideas, services and goods of all types, with greater responsibility and security that can be provided by any centralized form of governance, then he and a host of others at Mises Institute offer the most realistic way forward.  Give it a read.  See if it resonates.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual source:  Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Media source:  Mises.org

by

Is Anarcho-Libertarianism Anti-American?

Is Anarcho-Libertarianism American Cementary at Collevilleanti-American?

With the recent passing of Veterans Day, I was reminded of past conversations where it was asserted that support of Anarcho-Libertarianism (AL) was unpatriotic and anti-American; and, especially ungrateful and disrespectful to all those who sacrificed their lives or otherwise suffered for the preservation of American freedom.

Initially, this perspective seems to hold some truth, especially if one equates government to its constituents where government (those employed by or otherwise operating through it) and its citizens are all equal in the “eyes of the law”, being all on the same team so to speak.

However, if we remember that in fact government and its agents are not subject to the same standards, rules and laws as the constituents, then it becomes clear that their interests can and do diverge, often to the point of contradiction!  As such, two classes of persons result. Those who directly or indirectly subsist through the force of government and those who directly or indirectly subsist through the mutual consent of market exchange. An injustice by definition.

Mind you, this is not to suggest that all persons working for or through the government are bandits, thieves, etc.; only that the structure of government provides the deepest cover for such personalities and behavior and allows these systemic deficiencies to accumulate without efficient and timely correction, but that is another story so back to our veterans.

This danger of divisiveness inherent to the existence of government was probably best memorialized by an assertion where Benjamin Franklin who upon leaving the Constitutional Convention supposedly responded to a question as to the type of government the delegates had just created. His response: “A republic, if you can keep it.” We may never know exactly why he alluded to potential instability, but by logic and human nature, the fact remains that it was so then and is even more so now.

Similarly, we need not look further than the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America where it is expressly provided:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…” [emphasis added].

At its core, AL recognizes and respects what it actually means to be American, what it means to be really free and personally accountable, what it means to maintain and improve upon these ideals; all of which, promises a better future for humanity. AL is a socioeconomic political structure which is decentralized, organic, scale-able and more efficient in self-correction than any form of governance currently in practice. And, you don’t need a Constitution to enforce the Non-Aggression Principle.

Although very special from a historical and patriotic perspective, what is most special about American culture is not the typical American symbols:  Old Glory, the American Bald Eagle, Lady Liberty, the shape of our boundaries, the military might of the U.S. Armed Forces, etc. Yes, these are important and interesting icons and symbols to be sure. But like a map to the terrain, these symbols cannot replace or fully reflect the ideal and importance of a nearly unparalleled early culture of freedom; a sense that anything was possible by anyone – the wellspring of entrepreneurialism. Within generations and over lifetimes, relative to the past, many dreams were indeed fulfilled so much that America became known for that sense of real possibility; hence, how the Great American Experiment realized the American Dream.

Almost laughably, government has co-opted this spirit of all things possible as its sole domain, as the provider of the American Dream – think of its marketing of the Armed Forces and related agencies as global protectors and inventors, NASA’s space race, the justification of the postal service or the political promise of more jobs, higher wages, better education, less war, etc. – in sum, providing a better life. In reality, just the opposite has occurred, and not just over the last few years, but well over the last half century. The list of promises is nearly endless as it is incredulous; and, the trend continues. The good news is:  it is not a Republican or Democratic party problem; nor a people problem – it is just a structural problem which unlike human nature is fixable.

Today, that early essence of America – a culture of expanding freedom – has been wholly suffocated by an ever-growing obsession to plan, manage and control literally everyone and everything – seemingly everywhere – a fool’s errand if there ever was one. For generations, we’ve let government and a cadre of special interests grow and increasingly parasitize value created through consensual exchange. Talk about redistribution of wealth.

Although I can never fully empathize with battlefield veterans (not having first hand experience with war), I strongly suspect that the continual expansion of governmental repression of freedom was not what they had in mind when risking their lives. I also would gamble that if more persons were fully apprised of AL, then there would be a better understanding that the earlier ideal of freedom in American culture – that wellspring of entrepreneurialism which can solve any problem – would be best served and protected by AL thus creating the best environment for maximal and sustainable justice, peace and prosperity.

I’d say that’s über-American. Got AL?

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual source: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Media source: Wikipedia – American Battle Monuments Commission.

by

Real Anarchy and the Non-Aggression Principle

Anarchy with non-aggression?

stock-photo-20218630-peace-symbol-made-from-flowersAren’t they mutually exclusive?

Strictly speaking, no.

Lets look at anarchy. Remember etymology class or perhaps you took Latin?

Like many words, phrases, philosophies and -isms of just about any kind, interpretation can vary widely.  The same is true for anarchy.  However for the purpose of this website, anarchy shall mean its more historical definition:

“without rulers” i.e. absence of government which results in a stateless society but not necessarily one without rules – government and law are not one and the same.

Sunday, April 26, 2015 (4)Anarchy shall not mean what is often incorrectly assumed to occur in the absence of government – chaos, violence and mayhem which is how the word seems largely used today. Perhaps it is unwise to fight the trend, but in this original light, anarchy is a very powerful, provocative and efficient word.

When combined with a largely mutually agreed principle that serves everyone’s interest and accountability most equally, it tends to connote nearly infinite and organic creativity, greater responsibility, and maximal sustainability than what is otherwise possible where governance is founded upon force. As such, the word anarchy is irresistibly simple and accurate.

As alluded above, a stateless society does not necessary mean a society without laws. Government, law and order are not synonymous or even interdependent. Law and order, like language, have been around far longer than the modern nation-state.  They exist in their own right. Governance is a service like any other service imaginable. Like the creation of all products and services, governance can only be effectuated by individuals. Only individuals think, decide and act, regardless of the type of organizational entity from which they act. This should give us a clue as to why life without government is very possible and advantageous to all, but I digress.

Like anarchy, non-aggression means different things to different people, but there is a principle regarding non-aggression which actually drives why anarchy is absolutely necessary for the best possible degree of justice, peace and prosperity. It is called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) – for more information click here – and basically states that one can do anything one wishes as long as he doesn’t threaten or  commit harm to the body or property of another.

Pretty simple, right?  I would say beautifully simple.

But as with any law or principle, implementation can never be perfect, yet there is a certain fundamental accuracy in this principle that pervades basic human nature if we are consistent in how each of us would like to be treated and then in seeing others equally treated pursuant to the rule of law. And even though many cultures, faiths and traditions do not recognize such consistencies and equality, it is still the most basic social foundation to communicate and learn if we are all to otherwise practice what we wish to believe and do, whatever that may be.  If that foundation can be understood and respected by more people than not, then resolution to a host of local and global problems will be better solved.

Inextricably, the NAP is the fabric of a free, healthy, accessible and productive social, economic and political order – a system which inherently and most quickly self-corrects.  The only problem is that because government exists upon a foundation of force, it violates the NAP by its very existence. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the NAP necessarily manifests a condition of absolute anarchy.

Still you may ask, how will society govern itself?

Who will make the rules?

Enforce the peace?

Put out fires?

Manage the roads?

Defend us from terrorists?

The answer:  by and large, the same people who do so today.

Remember, it’s not the government per se which provides these services, it is individuals. Government is merely the organizational framework through which these particular services are currently provided.  Assuming that there is in fact a demand, or degree of a demand, for such government-provided services, the NAP by default also results in a free market which provides the same or better in appropriate quantity and quality. The free market must trend toward greater customization, efficiency and customer satisfaction. As the government inherently violates the NAP, it is also mutually exclusive of the free market.  Government exists and operates by force; a free market, by consent. Like pregnancy, there is no in-between. The market is either entirely free or arbitrarily obstructed in varying degrees by force. That obstruction necessarily relates back to government.

Furthermore, justice, whether social or the good old fashioned kind, requires the best consistency possible, not arbitrary exceptions.  Because government is largely exempt from its own laws, it cannot mutually exist with the highest degree of justice. In its creation, government results in a minimum of two unequal classes of  citizens; simply put, those who subsist through consent of the market and those who subsist through the force of government. Force and consent are mutually exclusive. These two classes, for which as long as there is government, will always create a condition of inherent and fundamental injustice within society.

Since government is synonymous with hypocrisy, it is constantly sowing the seeds of its own destruction – always trending toward more arbitrary action, social disruption, war and narrower distributed prosperity until finally it collapses.  I suspect that this maxim weighs heavily in the rise and fall of all known civilizations.  Government only survives by value created through the market i.e. taxes and then printing or debasing currency (counterfeiting); despite legal sanction, both are purely theft. As noted, through the millennia, civilizations and their governments have come and gone, but the market, however partially or intermittently restrained, has remained ever present and constant.

The takeaway? The freer the market the better.

What’s the most free market?  One without government …but not law and order.

In sum, the NAP provides for the greatest degree of human expression within the boundaries of the greatest degree of accountability. Only the NAP and its manifestation as the free market in a condition of absolute anarchy can sustainably provide for maximal entrepreneurialism with maximal accountability to better solve any problem, including law and order, where greater justice, peace and prosperity can be achieved for all persons.

Where do we start?

To objectively face the hard and deeper reality of what government is and is not; then to take responsibility for this fact, to learn, understand and communicate the NAP to as many persons who may have an interest. Once a critical mass of adherents has been gained, better lives will follow.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual credits: Murray N. Rothbard
Image source: iStockphoto.com and Wikimedia.org