Things are crazy right now. Really crazy. Unacceptably crazy.
But there’s far more than that that is unacceptable, and it is happening on a far more fundamental level. So perk up your ears, fellow humans—hear and recognize the absolute truth:
The initiation of coercive force is morally impermissible in ALL interactions.
All interactions. And I regret to inform you that…
Taxation is the initiation of coercive force.
Legislation is the initiation of coercive force.
Forcing people to pay for ‘protection’ is the initiation of coercive force.
Imposing nonconsensual authority is the initiation of coercive force.
Lying and calling that authority a “social contract” is the initiation of coercive force.
Creating a class of enforcers who are paid by theft, and who are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us, is the initiation of coercive force.
The fundamental claim above—that the initiation of coercive force is morally impermissible in all interactions—is actually not all that controversial.
Even toddlers know it…
If a teacher of young children tells them that the rule against eating in class has been lifted, they will eat in class. If she tells those same kids that it is now officially okay to push other kids off their chairs, they will yell at the teacher and tell her she’s wrong. Studies have demonstrated this. The nonaggression principle is deep, and probably even innate.
In a conversation with
yesterday, he pointed out that, “According to the current psychological literature, the ‘NAP’ is implicit within a solid 96–97 percent of the population.” I have seen data that put the number of true psychopaths even lower, but either way the point is the same: just about everyone knows, intuitively, that the initiation of coercive force is morally wrong, ontologically impermissible, and detrimental to life.You know not to clobber your neighbors and take their stuff. You know not to impose yourself upon them by force. And you know that if you do these things, they have a right to fight back.
Yet somehow, all of this suddenly becomes okay when government does it.
Put a gun to my neighbor’s head and make him pay for my cousin’s operation?
I would never!
Government does the exact same thing?
Bring it on!
Somehow, what was completely uncontroversial—the notion that the initiation of coercive force is morally impermissible in normal human interactions—becomes weird fringe crazy-talk when applied to government.
Why?
Because democracy?
Totally lame answer. Voting to make slavery legal does not make slavery acceptable.
Voting is not consent. Despite the endless moralizing about “democracy”—swinging that word around as if it were the Sword of Pure Justice—democracy is not actually inherently moral.
In fact, if voting is used to empower officials to initiate coercive force, then voting is fundamentally immoral. And voting is always used that way in a democracy. (Yes…even in a constitutional republic.) Which means that democracies and constitutional republics are always fundamentally immoral.
I will say that again, in the form of a syllogism.
The initiation of coercive force is morally impermissible in all interactions.
Democracies and republics initiate coercive force as a fundamental and intrinsic part of their normal functioning.
.˙. Democracies and republics are morally impermissible, even when functioning normally.
Even when functioning normally.
In other words, this is not just a matter of some corruption that has taken place—a perversion of a purer state. The initiation of coercive force has been morally impermissible since the dawn of time. Any system that uses the initiation of coercive force is thus morally impermissible.
To deny this, you must explain how the thing that is morally unacceptable when you do it suddenly becomes morally acceptable when a group of people calling themselves government do it.
And you must be precise.
And “democracy” is not an acceptable answer.
Taxation
Taxation of any kind, for any purpose, is morally unacceptable violent theft. The only exception is if the tax is actually voluntary. (The fact that you can vote, if you want, does not make anything voluntary.)
A lottery—that is voluntary taxation, since you can choose to buy a lottery ticket or not. See how that works?
Authority and the ‘social contract’
A ‘social contract’ that is imposed by force, and to which you did not explicitly consent, is morally unacceptable. Consent does not mean being told that you consented even though you obviously did not. Consent means a contract that you yourself read, agreed to, and signed.
A polity that you agreed to join, and that agreed to have you, and that you can also leave if you wish—that is consent. What we have now is not. See how that works?
Legislation
The moral impermissibility of the initiation of coercive force is the foundational principle of natural law. It is written into the fabric of reality. The only real law is natural law.
Prior to 1066 and the Norman Yoke, Saxon kings understood this. They understood that their role was to uphold natural law—not to invent “law” through legislation. A common-law process allows for the ongoing discovery of the principles of natural law. Legislation, by contrast, is tyranny imposed by a small group of people.
Yes, I know we needed to move away from monarchy and hereditary rule, and yes, the advent of parliaments was a part of that process. Fine. Does that mean we freeze that moment in amber? That no further revelations or advancements are possible?
Enforcers
All of this is enforced by men with guns. If you would like to meet those men, try refusing to obey something. Even if that something is an obviously unjust law, those men will show up and clobber you. Because enforcing the law is what they do.
And yes, they are above the law in some very important ways. They have qualified immunity, which means there are certain things they can get away with in pursuit of their ‘duties’ that we cannot get away with. And they are protected from liability in ways that we are not.
So……………
If your job is to invent legislation, you are engaged in the initiation of coercive force.
If your job is to facilitate and administrate all of this, you are engaged in the initiation of coercive force.
If your job is to enforce and impose all of this, you are engaged in the initiation of coercive force.
If you vote for this, you are engaged in the initiation of coercive force.
Once again, if you disagree with any of this, you must explain exactly how what is immoral if done by an individual becomes moral if done by a government.
You might not know of any alternative to how things are currently done…but that is not an answer. There are valid alternatives, even if you do not yet know about them.
On the other hand, you might be convinced of all this by now (which is great!), but you still might not be convinced regarding the viability of alternatives. That is fine for now.
But if that is the case, then it seems like it ought to be incumbent upon you to acknowledge something like the following…
The existing system cannot be morally justified in any way. Even though I do not yet know of alternative systems, or I am not yet convinced of their viability, I can no longer, in good conscience, support the existing system. Therefore, I will begin looking toward possible alternatives in an open-minded fashion.
Voting is participating in morally impermissible violence. The only way continuing to vote can possibly be justified is by saying, I am only doing this as a stopgap, until something better comes along, and I am actively looking for that better thing.
Seriously—if you accept the logic here, how can you do any less than that?
If you do not accept the logic, you must explain how.
And no, that does not mean yelling about how no alternatives can possibly work, or that there are no alternatives, or that anarchists are crazy. That is a separate discussion. Criticizing the moral reasoning here means criticizing the moral reasoning here. Dropping some red herring onto the table, as if it is some sort of masterstroke, is meaningless.
And finally…
Since the initiation of coercive force is morally impermissible, and
Since the deployment of protective force is permissible in response to and to defend against coercive force,
Then all of these things that government does are technically actionable violations.
Unfortunately, these particular kinds of initiations of coercive force are quite deeply baked into the human cake, and have been for a long time. As such, taking protective action in response is impractical and undesirable, and would not be understood or well-received by the vast throngs of normies that make up the bulk of the human population. A peaceful, evolutionary approach is better and likely to bear more fruit.
But that does not make such violations—technically—any less actionable, from a purely moral standpoint. That ought to be understood and kept in mind.
None of what is being done to you is acceptable.
None of it is any different morally than if one of your neighbors did it to you.
Ready to join the REvolution?
Coercion. Coercive force. Begs the questions, what qualifies as coercion, coercive? What is force?
Are you familiar with the concept of "Double Discipline?" It's found in martial arts training. As well as in government "training." Internal Discipline and External Discipline. China practices it.
Internal Discipline is the combination of our human pre-programming of right and wrong, innate, and educational, cultural, familial, social programming. How we're raised, our environmental perceptions and stimuli. Propaganda and Censorship serves to form Internal Discipline. As does "reeducation."
External Discipline is the application of "pressure points." Intimidation, duress, detention, denial of goods and services, denial of the ability to earn a living and sustain oneself, fines, confiscation, imprisonment, violence, death.
Under Double Discipline governance the state attempts to influence the individual at every opportunity. Particularly at young ages when minds are more malleable. It's why nearly every mass movement concentrates its early efforts on children, particularly via education and entertainment portals into young minds. Hitler Youth. Mao's Children Revolution.
Once a government has exerted its influence on young minds, manufacturing a "proper thinking" population guided by Internal Discipline its need for penalties, force, violence, External Discipline goes down. This is considered ideal for authoritarian governing models. China has emptier prisons than the US for this reason, they have the minds of their population programmed to accept their submission, own it as their own desired value. Less sense of self, more sense of collective.
During a transitional phase from a free society to an authoritarian one is when External Discipline is at its peak. While young minds are shaped for future compliance and obedience the older population must be compelled to submit. A ruthlessness emerges for the most disobedient. Authorities don't care as much about changing minds of the older population, they will age out, die off as the younger "proper thinking" population is created. Authorities only want and demand the obedience of the adults. They don't have to be convinced, they may know with every fiber of their body that demands of them are wrong. They just must obey. The Cultural Revolution transition period in China was brutal. Struggle sessions, show trials, millions executed. Two out of three so far in the US and western nations. So far....
I think back to those who wore masks knowing it was wrong. Not their hill to die on. Maybe they were mesh, worn below the nose, had "F Biden" printed on them. Authorities didn't care about the message or improper wearing in most cases. The act of compliance was the goal. Submission. They didn't care if adults believed in masking, just that they did. The children, those are the minds they are after. It's why schools required masks long after the rest of society stopped. Shaping the Internal Discipline of the young.
A "perfected" Double Discipline society requires comparatively little force to govern. Which they consider kinder, more benevolent governance. We are in that transition phase. Where External Discipline is the feature facing disobedient-minded adults. And if we don't stand up and allow ourselves to be intimidated into obedience, believing that by simply knowing better about these authoritarians as we comply, satisfied with our "F Biden" masks thinking we're really showing The Man that we're on to them then we're missing the plot. The young, programmed with different Internal Discipline will not fight for their freedom. They will look at freedom fighters as selfish and dangerous, just as authorities declare today. Freedom will have lost, become Slavery.
We must pass on disobedience to the young by example. The concept of coercion, coercive force is being redefined, reimagined by today's authoritarians. Who truly believe their vision of our future is kinder, gentler.
What is coercion, coercive force? Sort of an important question. An anarchic model seems to be the only way to avoid it. Barring that development how is the shaping of Internal Discipline to be addressed? The role of parents? The role of entertainment? The role of education? Even Anarchists don't deny the role of parents shaping the Internal Discipline of their children. Where are the acceptable lines of influence to be drawn in a society of 8.5 billion people living together, interdependently? Or are anarchists only concerned with External Discipline coercive force?
You would think this article is so obvious that it wouldn't need to be written. Unfortunately, it is very much needed. Bravo!