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

Freedom Defined

Freedom Defined

It is no surprise that politicians and pundits co-opted the Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion, but their betrayal of freedom is greater than ever.

While military invasions quash freedom, endless legislation continues to centralize power in the state  — a far greater threat than any army to the survival of freedom. Only maximum individual freedom (and responsibility) improves humanity. Anything short invites the enslavement of tyranny.

Most politicians, educators, and the media never explore a consistent meaning of freedom because it reveals the hypocrisy and injustice supporting the status quo. Generalization is the death of anything important.

Today, freedom is dead and oppression is alive and well. But at some point, the tolerance for abuse wanes and enough people ask the hard questions. Only then can the tide turn.

What does freedom really mean?

When does freedom apply?

Where does freedom begin and end?

Why does freedom differ in meaning between people, cultures, and countries?

How are the boundaries of freedom defined?

Could the boundaries of freedom be refined or objectified?

Although the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution have served better than most proclamations, over time their imperfection revealed the failure of democracy. Any system of governance is only as good as the agents entrusted with their enforcement. Most damningly, neither politicians nor bureaucrats can be effectively fired when they fail.

New blunders and hypocrisies occur daily. Improvement is possible, but not by a system that incentives the abuse of power. Democracy lacks the tools to solve its flaws – if this were false, would there be political and bureaucratic ineptness present today?

To escape the gridlock of government, answers to those questions are critical — not for just a few of us, but for everybody, or minimally a critical mass of the unconnected class i.e., the most abused class of persons, those neither a part of nor directly benefiting from the actions of the political class.  

Freedom defined objectively results in greater justice that can only result in positive change. To answer these basic questions, it first must be understood how life and living are related.

We hold from God the gift that, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot support itself. He who has bestowed it, has entrusted us with the care of supporting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it.

To that end, He has provided us with a collection of wonderful faculties; he has plunged us into the midst of a variety of elements. 

It is by the application of our faculties to these elements that the phenomena of assimilation and of appropriation, by which life pursues the circle that has been assigned to it are realized.

Existence, faculties, assimilation – in other words, personality, liberty, property – this is man.

Frederic Bastiat – The Law (1850)

Bastiat understood the inseparability of but the difference between life and living when he stated,

We hold from God the gift that, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.

He recognized Life as the supreme gift. Any awareness of living must be through it. Life deserves the utmost respect so consciousness can grow.

He continues:

But life cannot support itself. He who has bestowed it, has entrusted us with the care of supporting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it.

Although life is the supreme gift, its survival is not a given. Care, development, and perfection are hallmarks of mankind’s evolution. These require intention and action, and life is diminished when they are arbitrarily confined. Freedom expands these capabilities and the resultant possibilities in every moment. It allows for greater curiosity, creativity, and communication to share — to live as fully as nature otherwise permits. Without this recognition, tyranny expands.

To that end, He has provided us with a collection of wonderful faculties; he has plunged us into the midst of a variety of elements.

Man’s skills have evolved over eons and there is no end in sight. Why and how knowledge evolved may be forever disputed, but that it did and continues may not. Men have thought, decided, and acted in ways to preserve, enhance and continue life.

What makes this process safer, more palatable, and more productive?

Not the law of the jungle, nor governmental regulation, but the freedom to cooperate in the cultivation of everything — most importantly, the mind, body, and spirit, which includes any system of law and order, not to mention everything else that has a positive impact.

It is by the application of our faculties to these elements that the phenomena of assimilation and of appropriation, by which life pursues the circle that has been assigned to it are realized.

In a world of uncertainty and scarcity, positive cultivation and evolution require all our physical, mental, and spiritual faculties. Tools born from the mind and forged by trial and error. Freedom expands the time and space to ponder, analyze, experiment, and improve our faculties.

Existence, faculties, assimilation – in other words, personality, liberty, property – this is man.

Our bodies, knowledge, and intentions forge the creation of property from the environment. This is what men do. On a molecular and spiritual level, people literally mix their bodily energy, the mind, body, and spirit, with other energy in the environment.

Humankind continually melds with the environment to create new tools and new realities; always seeking to perpetuate and improve one’s life. This is at the heart of capitalism. It is organic. Freedom maximizes the possible combinations to achieve better well-being for each person and in summation society.

This trinity — personality, liberty, property — defines man. It is our essence. Freedom expands the geography for creation, but unlike space, worldly resources are finite and scarce. At some point, one man’s freedom becomes another man’s aggression which begs the ultimate question: where is the line?

The line is rarely clear because imperfection always exists, but it is deliberately or ignorantly obscured by many forces, in particular the vast parasitic ecosystem of politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests who unjustly benefit from a confused and uninformed constituency.

There is no incentive for higher knowledge, more justice, and a better world because these principles threaten the status quo of that system. Those in power fear most the redistribution of power and wealth. Real freedom …and responsibility… are taboo. It is not a conspiracy, simply human nature acting within this unjust framework.

Fortunately, with the right lens, the line between freedom and aggression is clearer. There is a little-known sect of economists, theorists, and historians that deduced and refined the tenets of freedom and the sphere of accountability that surrounds it. It is called the non-aggression principle (NAP), and it is the foundation of libertarianism. The NAP states:

That no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.[1]

’Aggression’ is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.[2]

The NAP provides a consistent standard to gauge whether one is free to act in particular ways.

Unlike the inefficient and unenforceable positive regulation of ongoing legislation, the NAP best defines when one man’s freedom infringes upon the freedom of another. It is a brilliantly consistent maxim that leaves any questions of fact and the decision-making process of accountability to market participants and not through the force of artificially vested politicians and bureaucrats.

The NAP also answers our questions about freedom to maximize the ability to achieve more consistent justice in determining accountability.

What does freedom really mean?

The NAP defines what freedom is not and does so without reliance on any specific religious or cultural bias, proclamation, legislation, etc. It can be justified by natural rights or logically deduced from the existence of the human body. Whatever one does that does not violate the NAP, one is free to do. While the definition of property and aggression can be argued, the basic premise resonates with most people in most cultures because each is similarly aware of their body and ownership of property.

When does freedom apply?

Freedom always applies until the NAP is violated where responsibility can then be more justly determined.

Where does freedom begin and end?

Freedom is balanced everywhere until the NAP is violated. The NAP is the maximum and most equitable boundary for determining basic freedom and responsibility between all persons.

Why does freedom differ in meaning between people, cultures, and countries?

With the NAP, it need not differ as much. Where there is a greater commonality in the definition of freedom, broader justice can be achieved, followed by greater peace and prosperity — locally and globally.

How are the boundaries of freedom defined?

The acceptance and implementation of all laws is subject to a critical mass of adherents and they fail to operate with perfect precision in every situation. Many are ineffective because they are unenforceable without violations of personal liberty, other laws, or a means of detection. Due to its situational nature, positive legislation tends to grow stale as it always lags behind technological and societal evolution.

The NAP bounds freedom in reverse. While legislation obligates or restricts specific action, the NAP is constant; thus, it is always current, consistent, and cost-effective, in monitoring and determining any form of aggression.

With the constant pressure of special interests, positive regulation expands without end, while all human action, regardless of the physical complexities, remains constant in its basic qualities in a world where resources are always scarce.

Over time, this body of positive regulation becomes full of inconsistencies and contradictions that result in selective enforcement — ironically resulting in greater injustice and the erosion of peace and prosperity.

Law and order must be applied individually against one rule of law — the NAP. It can be the benchmark in every dispute, the highest form of justice sought and achieved locally with minimal economic cost.

Could the boundaries of freedom be refined?

The NAP is the best definition to date; however, it is imperative to be open to something better. To achieve the highest state of justice, there can only be one rule of law. Justice is nothing if not consistent.

Any derivation from that maxim creates an artificial class structure where further injustice necessarily results in preserving it. All arguments for seeking justice and restitution can be related back to the NAP.

Justice is the first milestone to achieving lasting peace for maximum freedom and responsibility in social cooperation that creates mass prosperity (in all its forms) for true social and economic interdependence.

Freedom defined is freedom regained and sustained.

[1]Rothbard, Murray N. For a New Liberty. Auburn, Alabama: Skyer J. Collins. 1973. Amazon.

[2]Ibid.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy
Video/Image Source: Image from Pixabay.

by

Customer or Slave?

Customer or Slave?

A little over a year after the Covid pandemic began, the “vaccine” had been released and the government was driven to vaccinate everyone, regardless of their beliefs, values, or other medical circumstances – clearly a one-size-fits-all approach.

In preparation for a general medical exam, and not having been vaccinated, I requested a test for Coronavirus antibodies in addition to the normal blood panel test; however, the nurse said I needed my physician’s permission to get the antibody test. Stunned, I asked why. She said that was the hospital’s policy. I complained without success and thought why this policy.

Why can I not have any test for which I am willing to pay and by which no one will be injured or damaged?

And for a test, that our tax dollars likely facilitated the development?

Why does a doctor have such control when I am not asking him to personally act in some way that would violate his professional opinion?

Why does a government charged with protecting my rights allow for this prohibition?

I understand that some believe the test is inaccurate or they may have other motives for dissuading people from using it e.g., to increase rates of vaccination, etc. That is fine until they impose those beliefs on others by force through the government.

This rationale discourages and prohibits people from thinking for themselves. Many people wish to understand and assess their health from a number of perspectives. Nobody has all the answers. Science and people can learn more and grow together where there is a competitive forum for the exchange of ideas.

Plus, why would curiosity be shunned?

Like many industries, the medical profession has become infused with governmental intervention i.e., inefficient bureaucracy and unsubstantiated groupthink where increasingly doctors and nurses have become servants of the government. Many can perform great life-saving feats, but can hardly think for themselves in a broader social and economic context – a prime example of the learned ignoramus syndrome.

To boot, many are cocksure if not blatantly arrogant of their correctness, even when it is clearly illogical and counterproductive in many other ways. This is a symptom of too much governmental largess that breeds unaccountability, inefficiency, waste, and unnecessary expense.

These trends have created a medical system that has reduced personal care, active listening, and common logic. Many medical providers have forgotten their roots – that the patient is the customer, not a minion nor slave.

Although the Hippocratic Oath has evolved since ancient times, Wikipedia claims that many adhere to the following version:

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

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not”, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and am remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.”

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

Does the modern medical system embody those values?

After I submitted to the hospital’s policy and requested my doctor to authorize the test. He required me to schedule an office visit in a couple of weeks to discuss the matter. I immediately fired him.

Requiring a physical appointment to discuss his views for an antibody test?

Later that day, looking for a new doctor, I called another medical specialist whom I had seen for over 30 years. He would not provide me with three references for a new general practitioner. I was told to search the internet. I immediately fired him too.

Does any of this sound like superlative patient care and treatment consistent with the Hippocratic Oath?

Does it sound more like following an agenda with the mentality of CYA?

Why was it necessary to waste so much time to avoid such a simple test and provide other options for medical service?

Would it have been easier, cheaper and more efficient to allow the antibody test to reward one for taking interest and inquiring about his own health?

Would it have been better for the medical profession to abide by the Hippocratic Oath and acknowledge its uncertainty, to remain open to more points of view, and more possibilities?

Versus telling me what I needed, especially in a greater state of uncertainty surrounding the pandemic?

Or even worse, prohibiting me from taking a test?

When these measures of advice escalate to control is it a telltale sign of far deeper trouble?

Food is more important than healthcare, but do we find a stranglehold on services and products provided by grocery stores?

In a free market for healthcare services and products, these systemic ills would be eliminated by others willing to better serve. Adaptation and advancement would occur far more rapidly. Presently, there is no free market in a largely subsidized healthcare system, so there is little incentive, much less ability, for entrepreneurs to expand the quality and efficiency in medical care.

In this environment, is that surprising?

Look closely at any industry where the government intervenes and we will find a mismash of irrational and often contradictory rules that create make-work and mostly serve the existence of bureaucracy and unchecked control; all of which suppresses curiosity, creativity and the ability to execute on ideas …unless one is “connected”, whether it through the right lawyer, accountant, lobbyist, functionary, deep-pocketed donor or politician. The relatively few winners then get a job, tax break, subsidy, grant, favorable regulation, etc. and stagnation ensues.

It cannot be stressed enough that government has zero ability in picking winning services and products. Its only mechanism is force. The selection and evolution of services and products is solely the province of customers in a free market.

At this time, there is no free market anywhere in the world so we all live under the yoke of the political class and its inefficiency, waste, excessive expense and resultant instability to society which degrades each of our lives. This is especially true for the aged, infirm, and uninformed who often lack the resources and tools to buffer the loss.

Whether the government is giving cover to Big Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Energy, etc., massive numbers of people fail to receive the attention, care, compassion, and expertise they desire and need for nearly all services or products relative to an economic environment void of government intervention where entrepreneurialism is maximized.

For now, we are more slaves than customers. We can do better.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy
Video/Image Source: Image by Pixabay

by

The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

Source: The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

In the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard, Fegley’s article exposes the fundamental reasons why the proverbial concept of “checks and balances” between the three branches of American government fails to protect  its constituents …and I would offer, why at fundamental level government is unsustainable and doomed to fail:  because all men are self-interested, regardless of the type of organizational structure from which they work.

Yet this begs the question of organizational structure – which is better?

Government

Non-Profit

Limited liability company

Partnership

Corporation

Sole-Proprietorship

Some would say that it depends.

In truth, they are all “fictions of law” or “creatures of statute”, and thus arbitrary. Nothing is accomplished by these entities unless someone actually does something i.e. digs hole, types a letter, diagnoses cancer or protects your home, etc.

Only individuals think, decide and act – not entities.

All governmental employees provide goods and services too – but because they work for government, they are not held to the higher bar of consensual exchange imposed upon non-governmental employees where the decision “to buy” is left solely to the customer.

Instead, the entire foundation of government and the subsistence of its employees is based upon force. There is no choice whether you want their services; and hence, no basic justice – which is the cornerstone of a peaceful and prosperous culture.

As such, the creation of government (not the services of governance) necessarily creates two groups of people which are held to entirely different standards of care and where the governmental class exists upon the efforts the non-governmental class – like or not – it’s actually a form of serfdom or slavery, not to mention that this sanctioned theft creates an enduring and seemingly ever expanding safe harbor for waste, inefficiency, and corruption.

Yes, the Constitution was a fantastic idea for its time and relative to other systems it has served the country’s constituents well, but time has exposed its deep flaws – namely as Fegley quoted Rothbard, pieces of paper don’t enforce themselves.

Think about it: The Constitution was signed in 1778. Fast forward to today and we can clearly see the metastasis of the U.S. Government and current conflicts of interest such as the debacle du jour: the alleged preferential treatment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI.

Is this result surprising given the rise and fall of so many civilizations?

As we can see, the great system of “checks and balances” is forever flawed by an inherent conflict of interest.

Each branch of government tends to cover the others because they all need each other to maintain the edifice of government and the interest of those who benefit from the status quo.  No conspiracy here – just an expression of human nature.

The only “checks and balances” we really need is the maintenance of the power for each person to decide whether he or she needs any good or service – and for this to be enforced based upon one rule of law – the Non-Aggression Principle.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source:  Tate Fegley https://mises.org/blog/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-new-attack-fourth-amendment.
Media source:  www.mises.org