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

So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk

So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk

************

The following article, “Is TikTok a National Security Risk?”, was originally published by the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2022 as answers from adult students to the question posed in the article’s title. See here. The author’s commentary on various excerpts is in blue or otherwise in the larger font.

************

Despite the hysteria about China and the CCP infiltrating the world and in particular the U.S.A., there is a far greater contagion infecting the hearts and minds of western culture — a disconnection between how many would like the world to be and reasonable means to achieve it, not to mention whether these goals are even possible or worthy.

The dogma that underlies many of the answers endangers the “can-do” American culture that has significantly contributed to, if not propelled and perpetuated, the arc of modern history in the Americas and in other parts of the world. Although many Americans are proud of this legacy, it is not wholly ours.

Centuries before the creation of the U.S. government, what was to become the Americas became a refuge. Immigrants came here for many reasons, but a change from their particular status quo was the common denominator. Many risked everything to gain the freedom to take greater responsibility for their futures. Regardless of their origin, they were the seeds if not the standard bearers of “rugged individualism” and “American exceptionalism” — before these notions were co-opted by those in the American government and used as an excuse for a litany of hegemonic efforts — they were simply entrepreneurs.

Both conservatives and progressives are trading the very essence, the fundamental principles, of what was good about the evolution of these identities for the illusion of protection by the government, in this case from technological innovation that we are only just beginning to understand — think Sam Bankman-Fried. Oh yes, many are calling for more regulation, but there will always be fraudsters, and the government will always be one step behind. Just like Enron, Madoff, and now SBF.

Once this charade, this sophisticated Wizard of Oz-like dynamic, is recognized and appreciated for its impossibilities by a critical mass of persons, then culturally we can move forward with addressing any threat in a far more responsive, adaptable, and cost-effective manner through the unbridled principles of entrepreneurialism bounded only by the non-aggression principle.

So in a free society, if the government cannot protect us from ourselves, from what we view and what we allow our children to view, whether it’s TikTok as a trojan horse, Twitter censorship, Google data theft — the Enrons-of-today — then who will?

The short answer is each of us. It starts with the individual. Sovereignty is in the individual, not some arbitrary nation-state. If we cannot manage or we lack individually, then through delegation to entrepreneurs seeking to serve that demand. Only then, can we grow individually and by sum as a society.

Each of us always has a choice. In every moment, we can consciously witness all the choices before us. We can consider how making each possible choice affects ourselves, those, and the environment around us. Then pause. Which ones resonate in logic? In intuition? Most importantly, which one resonates in the heart? If not, back up and re-examine the options. The alignment of logic, intuition, and the heart is about as good as it gets.

What does this process, this extra effort in critical thinking and greater self-awareness give us? Wisdom. It is earned, never granted, and never easy. It is an investment in the self. We grow in unforeseen ways. We advance best practices for any solution whether we solve them directly or indirectly by casting our votes with entrepreneurs who have skin in the game.

As we grow individually, we create market forces that inspire and ignite curiosity and creativity in others to specialize and solve any problem far more effectively than any government official or bureaucrat could possibly dream — not due to lesser intelligence, but a better alignment of incentives and greater appreciation for risks; both of which, fail to exist within the political class and its immediate environment — not just with the U.S. government, but all governments.

And most ironically, the yielding of choice or power to our government plays perfectly for the CCP in that our government becomes a little more like it — I cannot think of a better example of a race to the bottom.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy, borrowing heavily from assorted writings by Murray N. Rothbard and Deepak Chopra summarizing Vedic philosophy in the Seven Spiritual Laws of Sucess in commenting on “Is TikTok a National Security Risk?”, as originally published by the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2022 5:59 pm ET

Video/Image Source: Martin Bureau/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

by

Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?

Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?

Source: Do Consumers Know What’s Best for Them?

Human nature is largely human nature regardless of culture, upbringing, etc. We all suffer from the many and various flaws of being human.

But over time, on the whole, for justice to prevail, for peace to follow, for prosperity to accumulate, to weave a common strength between us, we all need to be on the same proverbial playing field because we are all human, except for the reptilians and greys …just kidding!

If we want justice, it starts here with this concept – not some program drafted by bureaucrats in a governmentsl agency to somehow balance benefits or redistribute money for equalizing the general well-being of millions of people. Someone once said justice is consistent if nothing else – which by the way, begs the question: what is social justice? I’m still struggling with that one.

But I digress, back to the need for a level playing field. There is more than a grain of truth to that statement. It is the basis for what the true rule of law stands. It is what we are currently missing in most cultures and countries, including the United States. It should be respected, if not revered, not circumvented by excuse and subterfuge.

Rothbard, as only he so often crystalizes, wrote the following quoted from the above piece published by mises.org – very likely the finest organization devoted to educating all about the best and most equitable forms of economic thought and freedom.

“Thus, the privately hired expert flourishes in proportion to his ability, whereas the government expert flourishes in proportion to his success in currying political favor. Moreover, what incentive does the government expert have to care about the interests of his subjects? Surely he is not especially endowed with superior qualities by virtue of his government post. He is no more virtuous than the private expert; indeed, he is inherently less capable and is more inclined to wield coercive force. But while the private expert has every pecuniary incentive to care about his clients or patients, the government expert has no incentive whatever. He obtains his revenue in any event. He is devoid of any incentive to worry about his subject’s true interests.”

He does not say that a given governmental official cannot care, only that there is an inequality of incentive and accountability. That’s an unavoidable fact. And, over time, the lack of incentive and accountability, over time, over individuals, makes itself known.

Ultimately, it is about accountability. Those in the free market are always held to a higher standard of accountability because the “beneficiary” a/k/a customer is free to not avail themselves of such free market products or services. That’s choice which is the same as power.

Obviously, this is not the case with government where the “beneficiary” is the constituent. We are not always free to choose. In fact, we are very often forced. Mob rule controls. We go with the program or we are penalized – regardless of our agreement or acceptance of the program. That is less choice and therefore less power.

Is it any surpise we see the polarity in modern politics?

Some are willing to relinquish their power in favor of more government and some won’t – that’s a problem.

When one gains consent of another, the bar is higher for each and for the good of both. Both consent. Both agree. Both must trust. Both must win. Contrary to what we were taught in public school and often through private universities, force involves no trust. It is simply a smaller group of persons operating through one type of human organizatin known as government to bluntly force its agenda upon the non-consenting constituents.

Contrary to many a modern academic, we don’t need PhDs to fathom what are typically fundamental truths or actions of human nature – what Ludwig von Mises defined as praxeology. It really is that simple. For those of us who are a bit older and presumably wiser, the hard part is unwinding years of indoctrination and separating the good (becuase it wasn’t all bad) from the …really bad, for which there always seems to be some super arbitrary excuse by government or its priveleged interests.

Arbitrariness and justice are mutually exclusive.

What do you see in government that is arbitrary?

Can an unjust organization provide justice?

And, in turn peace?

And, by extension sustainable prosperity?

Is it so hard to understand the disparity in distribution of wealth when government provides cover to Big-Everything?

Can we expect it to change?

And, if not, what can we do?

Ultimately, the consumers will decide because they do know what is best for them.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Video/Image source: mises.org
Source:  mises.org

by

Can States Compel You to Bake a Cake Against Your Will? The Supreme Court Will Decide.

Can States Compel You to Bake a Cake Against Your Will? The Supreme Court Will Decide.

Masterpiece is the first such case to make it to the justices.

Source: Can States Compel You to Bake a Cake Against Your Will? The Supreme Court Will Decide.  By Stephanie Slade at reason.com

Masterpiece exposes another gross example of democracy/federalism gone bad …which always occurs… given sufficient time.

But more specifically, such cases show the limitation of nearly all laws, but especially those which create arbitrary classes and bright-line definitions that eventually reveal substantial uncertainty, create confusion, and then worse, become the basis for legal conclusions that are beyond absurd …like forcing a baker to bake a cake for someone …for whatever reason. And, not to mention, that such laws are not practically enforceable; thus, a waste of resources.

But perhaps most importantly, affirmation of such laws fuels the expansion of the veiled slavery under which virtually all of us live. I can only pray that SCOTUS doesn’t it take itself too seriously, and relieves us of another pseudo-intellectual juggernaut against those who earn their livelihood through mutual consent versus those that feel compelled to enforce this tripe, and can afford to do so only through the force government because there is no economic check on the theft of taxation.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source: reason.com
Media source: reason.com
Image source: reason.com; Katherine Mangu-Ward