Recent comments

John: You [AtlasAikido] said the consequences of aggression were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison. This is the assertion I've contested, because it's pretty obviously not true. "I [AtlasAikido] never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia..." If the consequences may not be immediately visible on the aggressor they certainly are on the victims. Again: Not envisioning a "Utopia" in which no man tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows and there will always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will on others by force. What the Tannehill's and I am proposing is a system for dealing with such which is far superior to the past and present govermental ones--*a system which makes the violation of human liberty far more difficult and less rewarding for all who want to live as brutes and downright impossible for those who want to be politicians!!* Again: Nor am I proposing a "Perfect" society (what ever that is).. Men are fallible so mistakes will always be made and there will never be a society of total equity. Under the present and past governmental systems however, blunders and aggressive intrusions into the lives of peaceful individuals tend to feed on themselves and to grow automatically so that what starts off as a small injustice (small tax, regulation, bureau etc ) inevitably becomes *a Colossus with Monsters* in charge.

"Put the ball back in his court. *Ask him--as an individual--what he would do*. " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave. John asked the question of Suverans2. "I'm very comfortable with natural law, as were the American Founders but how do you propose to bring it back in fashion?" Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems.

"Whether rights are violated or not does not matter in our view of what must be." I am baffled by this statement that stands completely unsupported in this article. Any action which doesn't violate rights is morally permissible. Any action which violates rights is not morally permissible. That certainly matters in my view of what ought to be. I've read Nozick's argument for a voluntary government and find that it simply fails and all such arguments fail in principle.

"It may well be the case (as time goes by I'm more and more convinced it IS the case) that any government will, over time, grow and encroach on basic rights, until it no more secures rights than a thief in an alley does. It is perfectly reasonable to question the practicality of trying to bring to pass a minarchist's dream of the best possible society." I'd like to hear how any government can act as a government at all without violating basic rights. I can certainly see how someone could fear that anarchy will not produce a stable society, but I cannot see how that fear could ever justify collaboration in the violation of rights - and such collaboration is inherent in government. You can't have minarchy without holding a gun to the heads of innocent people and your misgivings about anachy cannot justify that.

I should also clarify: Religion is a subset of superstition. Religion is superstition but I wouldn't say all superstition qualifies as religion.

Well put and agreed Suverans2, In addition: In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. Put the ball back in their court. *Ask them what they would do*. Human interaction is purely voluntary. *It is important to let the ones asking the questions find their own solutions, or what they think might be solutions*. I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now.

Thank you, John T. Kennedy, that makes perfect sense.

@Suverans2 "Not sure I understand the difference between Superstition and Religion..." The difference is the degree of success in marketing.

I didn't "like" this, John T. Kennedy, because I think you are right. A vast majority of individuals have become so dependent on government that they no longer have any confidence in their own power to solve problems. And, I believe history also proves out what you wrote.

There are many people who want different government, far less than 1% desire no government. As the economy breaks down people will call for more government.

That is normally so. But, these are not normal times. An awful lot of people are already losing their faith in government, and that trend will continue as government is seen as more incompetent and unreasonable, and as it ruins the economy. But you are making my point, really. That's why I say "stop evangelizing freedom". We don't have to convert people into freedom lovers. We just need to get them to tolerate freedom lovers, a much smaller job. Most people are naturally tolerant. It takes a lot of indoctrination to make them act otherwise (e.g. in the voting booth), and that indoctrination is pretty fragile these days.

"I never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia..." You said the consequences of aggression were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison. This is the assertion I've contested, because it's pretty obviously not true. "I never said there was a perfect system..." Inescapable moral consequences would comprise a perfect system in a very real sense. "It is sad that you have come this far and show all the hall marks evidenced here of appeal to authority and social metaphysics." Where have I appealed to authority?

Govt introduces chaos where there is none. This simple point seems to allude you. Perhaps your time would be better served reading what you clearly are out of touch with. And this includes your inability to read what is in front of you: I never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia but I do point to one that is far superior than what we have--a free market system and I supply reasons. You started off with Stalin, and Mao and now you're onto Churchill and Eisenhower. Again Govt introduces chaos where there is none! Frankly you could have read the parts that you are clearly out of touch with the first time I brought it up. John, I am not Morpheus and you are clearly not Neo. Apparently you have a problem opening a book let alone a door to self-knowledge. I am so impressed that you know Murphy --too bad that's as far as it goes because I see no similarity other than you are friends. It is sad that you have come this far and show all the hall marks evidenced here of appeal to authority and social metaphysics.

"If you mean karma as a euphemism for the consequences of natural laws? Not sure why you use karma when talking about natural laws (laws of identity and causality)?" I use the word karma because you're asserting that the free market is an inescapable mechanism for balancing the scales of justice, functionally the same as the Indian concept of karma or the christian concept of judgement/afterlife. Free markets are wonderful but they are not a perfect mechanism for balancing the scales of justice. "The whole point is the difference between market freedom and government slavery. Is individual consequences interfered with in the case of government? Clearly yes to your point with Stalin and Mao. I pointed out that only govt and a belief in govt could make that possible. Although Stalin and Mao were clearly unfree. And that I do not doubt they suffered the personal consequences of being psychopaths even though they may not have seen themselves as such." Forget Stalin and Mao for a moment and consider Western heroes such as Eisenhower and Churchill. Or any popular president will do, say Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. All of these men are moral criminals yet they have public honors heaped upon them and hardly anyone considers them psychopaths. Do you suppose these people lived in shame or fear as a result of their moral crimes? History seems to show that they were prod of many of these crimes and revered for them. To say that this is only so because government interferes with your inescapable moral mechanism is only to admit the mechanism is not inescapable, which is my point. But put government aside. Suppose a man's son needs an expensive operation to save his life. The man cannot afford it. He robs a bank to pay for it. Because he is smart and or lucky he gets away with the robbery leaving no clues, pays for the operation and his son lives. Now the man may feel guilty about robbing the bank and he may feel some apprehension that he could someday be caught, but there is no reason in principle why he cannot happily bear those costs in return for his son's life. He committed a moral crime and yet may still profit from it. Where is the inescapable justice? "Perhaps you don't read online pdfs. There is also a free audio at Mises.org for "Market For Liberty" and Robert Murphy wrote "Chaos Theory" which is also free." I'm fully aware of the literature. I'm aware of the Tannehills, but have not read them. I may read them someday but I'm pretty sure I know the gist of what's in it. I've known Bob Murphy for ten years, in fact he was a contributor to my web site: http://web.archive.org/web/20050817134418/http://www.no-treason.com/Murphy/

And strayed right back on topic I see with a piece on custom/common law, statute law etc

G'day Sam, To take what you 'said' one step further, Statism IS a religion! "…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god." ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-08-10-ticket_for_swearing.png

G'day John T. Kennedy, I think what AtlasAikido was saying is, fashion be damned, be true to yourself, "be the change you wish to see in the world". Those with ears to hear, and eyes to see, will hearken and understand.

Regarding 'This has been advocated by religionists who claim "As ye sow, so shall ye reap"; by Ayn Rand who claims that rationality provides survival; by Intelligent Designers who refer to teleological explanations; and by others such as poets'. I am not focused on "what a so called stellar list of authorities" Allen refers to. It does not matter. If an atheist. agnostic, religionist poet said it. But I will answer in this way: For years men with plans to improve society--atheist. agnostic, deist, religionist, poets--have debated the merits and demerits of various kinds and amounts of govt, and they have argued long and and heatedly over how much freedom was desirable or necessary to provide the needs of man's life. *But very few of them tried to clearly identify the Nature of government, the Nature of freedom, and even the Nature of man*. Consequently their social schemes have not been in accordance with reality and their "solutions" to human ills have been little more than erudite fantasies. Neither the futile and shop worn panaceas of The Establishment nor the "God and country" fervor of the Right, nor the angry peace marches of the Left can build a better society *if men do not have a clear, reality based, non-contradictory idea of what a better society is. If we don't know where we are going we won't get there*. It is the aim of the following book to show where we are (or should be) going. Here is a book review Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/ Freedom-Naturally

I'd like to add a thought from Tzo's essay, in light of Delmar England's quoted observations: Government has discovered that by molding (double meaning intended) the minds of its citizenry, it can fabricate an invisible holding cell wherein the unaware citizen believes all sorts of contradictions that effectively keeps him trapped within a prison he cannot see and cannot believe exists because he knows perfectly well that he is free. Among conservative groups we often hear the "separation of church and state" chant. Never happen. Agents of state from the beginning of time have depended upon leaders of "the church" (from the gigantic "mother" in the Vatican to the tiny protestant groups up and down the street -- and that takes in just the professing Chr-stian entities) to promulgate -- enforce -- their dictates. And vice versa. Church and State are inextricably yoked. You'll see state agents scurrying to and fro threatening and creating illusions of enforcing laws and edicts prohibiting religious icons in "public" places in these upcoming political holidays (and they ARE political, mind you). But separation of church and state is a contradiction in terms when you think about it. Oxymoronic. Sam

If you mean karma as a euphemism for the consequences of natural laws? Not sure why you use karma when talking about natural laws (laws of identity and causality)? Too much of a floating abstraction (sky wizard stuff for me and I am not casting aspersions).... But if one is unfamiliar with natural law then I could see how one could think of karma as separate from the other. I hold them as the same thing--I could be persuaded not to--but I try not to use that term unless talking with someone who uses it. LOL It is precisely because of self interest (rational), competition and productive trade and its consequences that a free market works so well--in accordance with reality. So? *It would seem John, something is off with your assertion*. Free markets require and make it possible for inescapable individual consequences (Integrity and Justice) to manifest without being obscured. (But then that is what the book gets into and more--objectivity of laws of supply and demand--and hopefully as a *market* anarchist you are reading a seminal work by laissez-faire free market anarchists Linda and Morris Tannehill....) The whole point is the difference between market freedom and government slavery. Is individual consequences interfered with in the case of government? Clearly yes to your point with Stalin and Mao. I pointed out that only govt and a belief in govt could make that possible. "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." [Frederick Douglass] My advice: Treat everyone as if he owns himself. Because he does. Don't advocate that he be forced, "legally" or otherwise, to do ANYTHING, except for refraining from infringing on someone else's self-ownership. And if you do advocate using NON-DEFENSE FORCE, *don't pretend to believe in freedom*; and when you then find such *unjustified force aimed at YOU*, you damn well deserve it. Oh yes I also covered the issue of: Not envisioning a "Utopia" in which no man tries to victimize another. Nor am I proposing a "Perfect" society (what ever that is)...in a prior post but I do show the basics of why laissez faire's--such as self correcting mechanism makes it superior.... Perhaps you don't read online pdfs. There is also a free audio at Mises.org for "Market For Liberty" and Robert Murphy wrote "Chaos Theory" which is also free.

Yes, you are right Suverans2 private messages is not working.

I'm very comfortable with natural law, as were the American Founders but how do you propose to bring it back in fashion?

"...we stray ever farther from the topic, [which is] "There's the law, then there's The Law"... This is, arguably, the most important topic there is for free men and women, or men and women who are truly desiring to be free. We can understand this just by the highlighted portions of these two lead-ins. "The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law] In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: ...by slavish conformity to custom [common law], by arbitrary whim [statute law], or by use of man’s reason [natural law]". ~ Murray N. Rothbard http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/three.asp ___________________________________________________________________________________________ "...we need to promote the idea of natural law, that an act is lawful or criminal on its own merits, and not because of the decree of some group of rulers. The idea of natural law is more important than the specifics of its content, because once this idea is accepted, the state and its statutes are no longer relevant when discussing the lawfulness of an act." ~ Rule-of-law Anarchism: A Strategy for Destroying the State's Legitimacy by Kevin S. Van Horn Let us take those two, most important points, out of context, so that we may see them more clearly. "...the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo..." "...once this idea is accepted, the state and its statutes are no longer relevant..." Is it any fricken wonder, then, that Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law, writes in his treatise, NATURAL LAW, "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics. The practice of natural law also has been eliminated almost completely by the legal profession. Very often, the study and the practice of natural law are scorned, if not ridiculed. The reasons for this desultory attitude towards natural law are many. One reason is ideological. Many people subscribe to an ideology that is virulently anti-human. They do not think that there is anything respectable about human beings as they are. Usually, they combine this belief with the idea that 'human nature can and should be changed' so as to make it conform to their own ideal of Man. Thus, they claim that men and women should be taught or forced not to respect the order of [the] human world but to respect instead the imaginary 'normative order' that the ideologues prefer. They should be forced or taught not to respect one another for the human beings they are but only the ideal 'new man' that they should become. ...they generally have tended to redefine the word 'law' so that it now is virtually synonymous with politically imposed or sanctioned social regulation." We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

John if you are a so called market anarchist you are witnessed as taking far too much stock in "prudent criminals". As if free markets can never prevail in the law and defense. And again the book covers this specific issue! Perhaps you will address this? As much as some try to hide it, the truth of the state is *continuously being uncovered*. So the foundation continues to crumble, not stand. No, the future is not too bright for government and "prudent criminals"--and those who put too much stock in evil and not enough in the good--it is brightening for liberty which is to my knowledge due to natural laws and natural justice. They cannot apparently be by-passed. Raise up free markets. Raise up the spontaneous order of the market. Raise up the agora. Not to smash the state, but to obviate it. Not to make it the victim, and encourage its supporters to give it more power, but to show it as the bully it is. Show the surplus order of the state for what it is, so that people choose to abandon it for something better. Apparently this does not stand for John. In fact a would be "prudent" tyrant's customers--in a free market--would be an obstacle to him....He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all.... ...Govt employees are legally protected from suffering personal consequences as a result of all but the most blatant acts of the aggressive acts which they perpetrate "in the line of duty". Such functionaries as police officials, judges and revenue agents can initiate force with immunity by taking protection under such cliches as "I don't write The Law; I just enforce it" or "that's a matter for a jury to decide" or "this statute was passed by duly elected reps of the people". But employees of a free market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their actions... ...It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which *crime bosses* are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels. From the $50 payoff to the local cop to the $10,000 contribution to a senator's campaign fund organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off govt opposition. ...In a laissez-faire society aggressors would not only be scattered but weak and unorganized they would find it next to impossible to buy off free market protection and arbitration agencies. Customers of a defense company don't have to keep patronizing it if they find out its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors.. They are free to do what citizens can never do--find some other agency to protect them. A free market agency could not afford to have under-world connections even with the small and unimportant underworld of a free market...When the news media revealed its shady dealings its customers would desert it... ...Furthermore customers of a free market defense company are not imbued with a citizen's patriotic fervor and obedience and thus are much harder to lure into foolish collectivist endeavors (such as national unity). Free men don't leap like fools and sheep to defend a flag or sacrifice themselves for the cause of politicians ("prudent criminals"). These are some of the many ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort and so called prudent criminals. ....While it is generally recognized that man's physical and even his mental nature are subject to the rule of natural law it is just as generally assumed that in the area of morality, and specifically moral human relationships, is completely outside the scope of natural law. This assumption is held tacitly, rather than identified and defended, simply because it can't be defended. It is completely foolish to assert that man is a being with a specific nature and therefore subject to the rules of principles derived from that nature in all areas...except when he deals with other men. Do men men cease to have a specific nature when they come into relationship with other men? Of course not!