I am increasingly convinced that most, if not all current systems, especially government and religions, can and should be considered cults.
And the people who profess fealty to those systems are cult members - the methodologies and practices meant to convince us (or force us or frighten us) to continue our participation in the cult are an age-old program.
So the greatest challenge we have is in choosing to leave the cults we were indoctrinated and brainwashed to accept.
We have to recognize the cult first in order to leave it.
The U.S. is not “our country.” They are not “our militaries” or “our bombs” being dropped on brown people. It is not “our national debt.”
The U.S. is not a “Christian country.”
If it didn’t require or gain our consent, then it is not OURS.
And unfortunately, all the “opposition, whistle-blowers and justice-seekers” are part of the game. They inadvertently legitimize the current system by giving the “appearance” of choice, of working to “fix” the system when no such repair will ever take place. It is the definition of “controlled opposition,” and it is meant to throw us off the scent.
"And unfortunately, all the “opposition, whistle-blowers and justice-seekers” are part of the game. They inadvertently legitimize the current system by giving the “appearance” of choice, of working to “fix” the system when no such repair will ever take place. It is the definition of “controlled opposition,” and it is meant to throw us off the scent."
—I had this same thought after reading "The Power of the Powerless" by Vaclav Havel. "Dissidents" are still a part of the system. In a sense, their dissidence legitimizes the system. I do not recall now whether it was Havel, me, or someone else who produced that insight, however! It's just baked into my thinking now.
That said, I do not believe that most dissidents are plants, insincere, or part of the scam. They are doing what they think is right. We just have to convince them that there is a next level of freedom to reach.
There is a difference between, say, Tucker and Jimmy Dore.
I think Tucker believes what he says, but he is also very much a U.S. cult member and/or Tucker was MKUltra'd which is why he gained the position he fills. He is useful to maintain the illusion.
Yeah, that's just it. I no longer care who is who. I cannot do anything about it anyway. We just need to move on to the sunnier uplands of a better future.
Excellent summary of the common deceptions and lack of critical and logical thought which have produced this sorry situation on our world for millennia Phillip. Conjuring, clever tricks to which so many succumb, and that some morally defective beings have developed the required skills to deceive and use to take advantage of so many with these tricks. by preying upon ignorant and weak minded gullible people who fall into the habit of believing fables because they want to or have chosen to believe.
So interesting - this romantic notion of an honorable nation that never existed.
Or a savior, who, even if he did exist beyond legend, would never tolerate the idolatory with which he is considered, or the seizure of his likeness and legacy to justify the current distorted corruption done in his name.
It is just so much easier to clothe ourselves with imaginary virtue and stolen valor than to develop those qualities in reality. Most would rather have a good excuse that they think is believable than to take personal responsibility for finding and knowing what is real and sticking with that. It takes actual effort. The difference is that the rewards are real also instead of being imaginary. People would rather live in filth and poverty and consider themselves innocent and virtuous victims than make the effort required to be free and confident creators I'm afraid.
Brilliantly writ, and I hope everyOne reads! So very, very true!
My only dispute here - and it is so minor, perhaps I should just drop it, but You know Me... LOL! I contend that morals are subjective and that Ethics are objective. You speak of "morality," but in some societies it is moral to stone a woman to death for wearing a bikini in public. It is NEVER Ethical.
The three Laws indeed cover the objective Ethics... Which I will offer again:
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
You note, I am sure, that consent is key in Ethics.
Yeah, I know some people forge a careful distinction between morality and ethics, while others use them interchangeably. In my case, the reader knows through context clues that I am speaking of something objective.
I strongly suggest that they were deliberately conflated - like anarchy and pandemonium... LOL! but yeah, it's clear what You mean in Your words. Love always!
I went down a rabbit hole of research on the subject of calendars, time, sidereal vs. tropical, etc. etc. January 1st as New Years is, as far as I can tell, the only observance that isn't based on ANYTHING. The Romans simply moved their observance from April 1st/start of Spring to January 1st so that some regional governors could take control of a province a few months earlier.
But, it's when everyone (here) does it, so it is what it is.
During all my years in educational institutions I can never recall a class in logic or how to reason. That includes elementary, high school, community college and university graduate degrees and some post graduate studies. Sad. The ability to personally be capable of rational thought and discernment is the one thing that we pride ourselves on over all other living creatures on earth. Yet the conditions we see through all of our known history proves that we are severely mistaken in our thinking and actions, in many vital areas or this world would not be in the state it is today.
We are fortunate to have this mind well trained in this valuable ability to lay these things out so plainly that even those least gifted in these critical abilities should be capable of understanding with any effort at all. I argue that this effort is one of the most worthwhile we will ever make here.
In short I was struck by how plain and simple it really is in just these examples Christopher lays out:
"Everyone knows that consent is the difference between boxing and assault, sex and rape, borrowing and theft."
"Consent is the beating heart of morality and justice."
"Ultimately, our goal is peace and social harmony. Thus, it will help us to know what sorts of acts do require consent. We can describe these as trespasses."
"A trespass is a violation of consent within another’s rightful domain.Do not, without valid consent, damage, take, encroach, subjugate, initiate coercive force upon, or fraudulently usurp the person, property, or liberty of another."
Hey, don't trespass, even as you would not be trespassed upon! This is not rocket science for goodness sake, it explains everything we don't like about this world!
"It is wrong to trespass the person, property, or liberty of another."
The exception being of course children, apprentice humans. It's the duty, the responsibility of the parents to define and delimit their offspring's doings, guiding them toward journeyman human status, setting them on the road with an adequate toolbox to face life as sovereign individuals.
A problem of course is far too many parents pass such responsibly to the government, to act in loco parentis.
The government, knowing a good thing (For those governing) when it sees it, continues to delimit and control their charges at the apprentice human stage as long as possible, "You WILL Do 'cause I Say So!" Far too many buy it, they want to be cared for rather than care.
Hence, alas, I look around and see a world chock full of 40 and fifty year old adolescents.
& yes I still delight in the idea of a distributed nation but I allow there are those who will never desire to or be able to be part of such.
Such that cannot are, such that cannot will probably in the future be, but I see no reason why we can't build better in spite of them.
"The exception being of course children, apprentice humans."
—Yessir. I touch on that in the chart, on the left side, under the silhouettes of those beautiful parents. And I will address it in our founding documents.
"It's the duty, the responsibility of the parents to define and delimit their offspring's doings, guiding them toward journeyman human status, setting them on the road with an adequate toolbox to face life as sovereign individuals."
—This is very well said. It is a trusteeship relationship. You acquired the responsibility to care for them because you caused them to exist. The facts of nature require that we exercise authority over them, and the moral emanations of those facts require that that authority be temporary, and slowly relinquished as they are able to care for themselves.
Christopher, after this one you could probably say ‘case closed’ done. But, there’s always a but, you made the point that it’s not just government, it’s ‘everyone’ that engages in the usurpation of our ontological freedom. The ones who say, “America, love it or leave it,” or if you don’t agree with Trump, go somewhere else. Of course they don’t have power, but they consent, thereby making a majority.
I’ve always had an issue with Jefferson’s words, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Does that mean we need government to secure our rights? Does it say government would have no power without our consent? It seems to, but I would say ‘no’ to both.
To me, those words from the DoI mean that government is one option, one path, that people who want to secure their rights have tried in the past, and may try again in the future.
But as Christopher (and others) have so clearly demonstrated, such a government, to be ethical, may only exercise its power in the domain of those from whom they have obtained explicit consent. (And that means consent in the manner Christopher describes above, not the vague 'social contract' bs that is usually mentioned in pathetic attempts at justifying the governmafia's criminal actions.) And in which case, it would no longer be a government per se, but more of a private security company with individual paying customers.
It has recently occurred to me that after private agencies have grown in size, mission, operating capital, etc., to the point where they can adequately defend against both criminals and invaders, the next step some of them will take is to protect their clients' sovereignty against the usurpations of government.
Yes, absolutely, this seems an obvious progression that must (and will) happen as we all continue acting to better our selves, our community, and ultimately society at large.
All the more reason for a person or group with operating capital to start buying up small private security and arbitration agencies and building the protection agencies of the future. The sooner the better!
If I may be so bold, I believe you are looking for two things, so I will do my best to answer those, and then you can correct me if I have misunderstood.
1. Philosophical recognition that rights/sovereignty/whatever-you-want-to-call-it does not constitute a magical force field.
I agree. You DO have the sole dominion over yourself, and no one else has any rightful dominion whatsoever over you. However, if individuals (or organizations of individuals) do not choose to respect that, protective force may be a necessary response (and is morally justified).
2. Practical answers to the IRS problem (and all of the other similar problems for which it serves as a useful proxy).
I have written about this at great length: the problem of government is more complicated than simple crime. Protective force (to liberate oneself and all those who wish to be liberated) is, at one level of analysis, entirely justified. However, there are moral and practical complications for which other solutions are likely better. (You have written about this at length too :-)
Ultimately, I believe we need numbers and counter-power. Not counter-power in the sense of a new state to resist the old by force, but something different from anything that has ever been.
Part of the answer may lie in market anarchism. I can see private agencies taking on a greater role in protecting individuals from crime and invasion—but then, over time, having that role expand even further, to include protecting sovereignty.
Hey, it's a solution that has the virtue of not having yet been tried in the modern era! That sets it apart from all the definition-of-insanity stuff we've been trying thus far.
I think we should collaborate on a friendly debate for the Advocates. We could do 400 wds back and forth. I’ve always been considered an apostate in this regard but I’m okay with that. Lemme know if this is of interest!
Hmm. I have spilled a lot of ink in multiple pieces—here and for the Advocates—arguing that we (libertarians) should not spend much time on internecine debates about minor points. It might be a bit strange and off-brand for me to engage in precisely that sort of diversion now.
This feels like the sort of thing you and I discuss over whiskey. Or maybe it's a public debate we have years from now, when we're old men and most of our more important work is done. (Besides, by that time, you will have realized I was right all along.)
The following is a supplement to my comment below. Since I replied to a comment made by Max Borders, I thought he might challenge my argument, but he did not. Recall the material I sent you showing that if any form of authoritarianism is internally consistent, it would have to be pure totalitarianism, since any form of authoritarianism that includes any element of libertarianism would necessarily be inconsistent. Then I showed that what one pure totalitarian could prohibit of his subjects, another could require, and the same totalitarian could change from prohibiting some action by his subjects to requiring it. Hence, pure totalitarianism, unlike pure libertarianism, is internally inconsistent. Thus, from pure totalitarianism, multiple instances of two contradictory propositions follow. That is, any form of authoritarianism implies at least two contradictory propositions, which can be expressed symbolically as “P” and “Not-p.” In a conditional proposition of the form “If p, then q,” the antecedent “p” is said to imply the consequent “q.” So, the first premise of my argument amounts to this: If some form of authoritarianism is correct, then both “P'' and “Not-p” are correct. An authoritarian will either accept both “P” and “Not-p” or not. If he does not, then by modus tollens, he denies the consequent of my premise, from which it follows that no form of authoritarianism is correct. Thus, by his own admission, he rejects authoritarianism. If he accepts both “P” and “Not-p,” it doesn't follow that some form of authoritarianism is correct, because affirming the consequent is invalid. Now he faces a different problem: As I showed you before, from a contradiction anything follows. By means of classical logic's principle of explosion, one can derive any proposition whatever from two contradictory propositions. For instance, by means of explosion, I can derive the following proposition: No form of authoritarianism is correct. Hence, whether the would-be authoritarian accepts both “P” and “Not-P” or not, he can't avoid rejecting authoritarianism. Any attempt to claim otherwise sends him right back into the labyrinth of explosions from which he cannot coherently emerge. I suspect that many people are libertarians because they are skilled at logic. I never had the opportunity to take a course in logic until I attended college, and then only one course was needed to satisfy a general core requirement.
If I had to guess at Max's possible response, it might be something like, "Yeah, all of that is solid logically, and yet totalitarianism still exists. What do we do about that? People do and believe illogical things. People violate the rights of others, even though it is unreasonable and morally unsupportable to do so. What do we do about that?"
He might not use the word "rights," since he tends to avoid that sort of language, but it was useful enough shorthand. I am still getting to know Max, but I suspect his reply might be something along those lines.
Nothing you, I, Max, or anyone else can say can stop a determined armed thug. Words are no defense against bullets. However, the thug won't be able to justify his behavior in the opinions of reasonable people, who should greatly outnumber him.
I can prove that the fundamental principle of authoritarianism leads to multiple instances of two contradictory propositions. An authoritarian will either accept two such propositions or not. If not, then he rejects the fundamental principle of authoritarianism and all it entails. If so, then by means of classical logic's principle of explosion, I can leave him with no position whatsoever on any issue, including authoritarianism. So either way, the authoritarian must give up authoritarianism. I've read that current evidence indicates that, on average, libertarians are more skilled at logical reasoning than those who accept other political ideologies. I propose that if more people studied logic, there would be more libertarians.
Ok, so what do we do with this? As established, these are facts in our shared reality, our existence. But how do we *live*?
I am most interested in the *philosophy*, and I need no convincing of logical framework that reflects what, to me, is inherently inarguable. But, short of completely dissolving the life I am currently connected to (my child, my trusted friends, my family) and moving to a tibetan monastery, how do we reconcile the need to earn money to pay the mortgage and participate in this society that feels so antithetical to everything right and good?
I have to buy health insurance and participate in that corruption or I can't adequately care for my son. To keep our house and ensure he is taken care of if I die, the only financially viable choice in our economy is to work for corporations or 'non-profits' (worse) and feed those beasts out of duty to remain above water and not become sick and homeless.
Some would argue it's our duty to protest, but, while i don't necessarily disagree with the right to peaceful protesting, I also view that as participation and legitimizing the entire system.
I wish these practical concerns weren't emergent and I could think and connect with other humans, and build better systems for living well. But I am in some liminal space where i feel deeper clarity on *how it is* and entirely void of clarity for *what that means*. The age-old search for purpose. What's any of it for?
Are we truly meant to trudge through a third of our lives in meaningless 'jobs' that, at best are just useless and empty but worse - contribute to the oppression and erosion of life for ourselves and others simply because we have to participate? I don't even feel depressed or hopeless about this self-imposed (?) prison - just sort of resigned.
But there has to be more. I don't even need to know what the 'more' is - but now, today, I need to know what this understanding compels me to do. How to live.
I sense two main themes here, which, at the risk of oversimplification, I might describe as
1) Are we legitimizing a morally problematic system by participating (and what other choice do we have)?
and
2) Is this all there is to life?
Re #1, we have to do what we have to do. As I have been writing here (https://christophercook.substack.com/t/thedistributednation) in rather extensive detail, there are no quick fixes. We have to get the project started. We have to plant trees whose boughs will shade our grandchildren.
We start building new institutions. We start living in new ways. We accept small victories and build on those. We do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We light the flame, we carry it forward, and when our time comes, we pass it on—brighter than it was when we first lit it. And we connect with others doing the same, that we might enjoy the fellow-feeling of working with, and enjoying the company of, people who feel the same.
#2 is, as you know, a perennial human question. It is easy enough to wonder why, and what's the point, as we go through the motions of life. That just speaks to our true nature as spiritual beings living in physical bodies. We do the things that life requires, and then we wonder what the larger spiritual point is.
I don't know if I have great answers. I think we may have (before we entered these bodies) decided that we wanted to experience limitations and challenges here on Earth (almost like a game). And now the point is to play the game as well as we can—to overcome those limitations and become awesome. And to have fun and do good things in the process.
And to connect with cool people who ask cool questions!
When most of us were born, we were picked up and held by our ankles and spanked by a nurse or doctor until we consented to the social contract. No one has asked me since if my saddle is comfortable or not. Happy 2026 everyone.
Thank you 🙏🏻 I worked very hard on it, both to write this specific piece and also, over a number of years, to figure all this stuff out. I appreciate your acknowledgment of that effort.
It really is well done. The concept is sound, the logic pretty much flawless. Well I can't find any flaws. Well structured, excellently reasoned argument. I can see it took work. And a lot of deep thought. In short - Brilliant!
It's kind of my last word on the subject, too. I have been working toward this for years. Now, a new kind of work begins—building a just world based on these principles.
"You can, by some act of coercion, be severed from the enjoyment of that self-ownership, but the self-ownership itself cannot be taken away by any force in the world. Your self-ownership is thus naturally exclusive and inalienable. Your personhood itself cannot be usurped or unmade. No one else can own you, and you cannot own anyone else."
Take the case of murder.
Does the murderer lose his enjoyment of self-ownership?
Is the murderer's self-ownership usurped by an authority responsible for enforcement of the prime directive?
This makes self-ownership conditional on the responsible behaviour of each individual.
What is the nature of this authority? How is it created? How is it managed and funded? How is this authority forced to conform to the prime directive?
I have never done this before, but I am going to have ChatGPT give you the thorough answer this deserves, but which I do not have the time to craft. (I have to work, write, take down a Christmas tree and outside lights, and prep for a day-trip tomorrow.) I just read over the answer I requested, and it is pretty much rock solid, so here you go.
(Sorry for what seems like a copout, but I really am pressed for time rn. But I am happy to discuss whatever further objections and questions you may have.)
1. Does the murderer lose his enjoyment of self-ownership?
Short answer:
No—self-ownership is not revoked, but its exercise is constrained as a consequence of violating the equal self-ownership of another.
Anarcho-capitalist framing:
Self-ownership is an ontological fact, not a reward for good behavior.
What changes after murder is not ownership of self, but liability incurred through aggression.
A murderer:
Still owns his body.
Still bears responsibility for his actions.
Is still the proper subject of restitution or punishment.
The loss of liberty (confinement, restitution, or even lethal force in some theories) is not a negation of self-ownership, but the defensive or restitutive response to a rights violation.
Rights violations generate liabilities, not metaphysical forfeitures.
An analogy often used:
If I smash your window, I do not “lose ownership” of my hands—but I may justly be restrained from using them to harm others, or compelled to compensate you.
2. Is the murderer’s self-ownership usurped by an authority responsible for enforcement of the prime directive?
Short answer:
No—because there is no monopoly authority, and enforcement does not imply ownership over the aggressor.
Key distinction:
There is a difference between:
Exercising force against someone, and
Owning that person
Anarcho-capitalism rejects the idea that:
Punishment requires sovereignty, or
Enforcement implies domination
Instead:
Enforcement is a defensive or restitutive act, grounded in the victim’s rights.
There is no transfer of self-ownership to an enforcer.
The enforcer does not become a master—only a respondent to a rights violation.
3. This makes self-ownership conditional on responsible behavior.
Short answer:
No—this confuses ownership with immunity.
Self-ownership is unconditional.
But immunity from consequences is not.
Anarcho-capitalism rejects:
“If you own yourself, nothing may ever be done to you.”
Instead, it affirms:
“If you aggress, others may justly respond to stop, restrain, or seek restitution from you.”
This is symmetrical and universal:
Your self-ownership limits my actions.
My self-ownership limits yours.
Aggression breaks that symmetry and generates liability.
This is not conditional rights—it is reciprocal rights.
4. What is the nature of this authority?
Short answer:
There is no authority in the statist sense.
Instead, anarcho-capitalism posits:
Decentralized, competing institutions arising from voluntary association.
These may include:
Private defense agencies
Arbitration courts
Restitution insurers
Community-recognized norms and protocols
Critically:
None claim final jurisdiction.
None claim monopoly power.
None possess inherent legitimacy apart from consent and performance.
Authority is functional, not sovereign.
5. How is this authority created?
Through voluntary action, such as:
Contract
Subscription
Mutual defense agreements
Insurance requirements
Reputation systems
People pre-commit to dispute-resolution mechanisms for the same reason they buy fire insurance:
Not because they expect aggression,
But because coordination reduces risk and uncertainty.
No social contract is presumed.
No universal obligation is imposed.
6. How is it managed and funded?
Managed by market incentives (competition, reputation, liability)
Funded by voluntary payment, insurance premiums, or restitution claims
Key point:
Agencies that abuse clients or overreach lose business.
Unlike states, they cannot tax, conscript, or immunize themselves.
7. How is this authority forced to conform to the prime directive?
It isn’t “forced” from above.
It is constrained by:
Competition (clients can exit)
Contract law (violations trigger liability)
Reputation systems (trust is capital)
Counter-agencies (abuse invites resistance)
Reciprocal norms (aggressors lose standing)
In short:
Enforcement agents are subject to the same non-aggression principle as everyone else.
There is no final arbiter immune from judgment.
Core Anarcho-Capitalist Principle (Summarized)
Self-ownership is inalienable.
Rights violations create liability, not forfeiture.
Your link above takes an error. No matter. The Substack formatting is fine. It would have never occurred to me to trust ChatGPT with these questions. Good to know.
"Your link above takes an error. No matter. The Substack formatting is fine. "
—I don't know how sharing Chat GPT links works; this is one of the first times I have tried it. Ah well.
"It would have never occurred to me to trust ChatGPT with these questions. Good to know.
—ChatGPT conforms itself to the user over time. I have had hundreds of thousands of words of discussions with it on this subject, so it knows what resources to look at, what intellectual tradition to draw from and speak to, etc. Thus, I believe that a fresh conversation with an "untrained" ChatGPT would not produce the same quality of answers.
It's not something you "need" to have it is what you have always had and always will, we simply know that there are those who will violate or try to violate them. The consequences of that violation affect all of us in ways we see all around us in the world today. In this world the violators seem to gain certain valued "benefits" from their criminal actions, however that is the illusion of this world. Everyone suffers as this is a problem the solution of which involves all of us, beginning with me and you!
I believe you are essentially describing what I gleaned from Mark Passio's valuable work in teaching Natural Law, and what I think of as The Law of Freedom:
"The Natural Laws governing the predictable consequences of human behavior are as Universal and Immutable as the natural laws of physics: The more people in a society act in violation of Natural Law, the more that society in the aggregate will experience war, enslavement, and poverty. And the more people act in accordance with Natural Law, the more we will experience Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity."
Thanks Nelson, yes you may receive some perceived personal benefits from violating natural law and preying on others, however being temporarily in a position with more possessions and privileges than those around you in a society that is rapidly decaying is like choosing to live in a sty because you get some more slop than the other pigs. I tend to doubt that the deep internal poverty of soul and self esteem that such suffer from is anything to bring greater happiness or satisfaction. I'd rather live in a peaceful stable place growing in beauty safety and mutual good feelings while sleeping well at night with a deep worthy self image based on real virtue instead of the pretended kind.
Also Paul Rosenberg's crucial description of, The Simplicity of the Human Condition:
"The position of a human in the known universe is, strange as this may seem, very simple to define, involving only four short points:
"1. The general nature of inanimate things is that of entropy.
"2. The general nature of living things is to reverse entropy.
"3. Humans, alone in the known universe, can reverse entropy willfully; we are able to improve the world, if and as we wish.
"4. Therefore, we give our lives direction and meaning by willfully reversing entropy, by choosing to create what we see as beneficial."
These words are not directed only to you, Hat, rather to everyone who may happen upon this post:
Please, take the time to re-read the above four points in detail, and then take the appropriate amount of time to reflect, ponder, and 'grok' their meaning in your own life.
Very insightful. There is deep soul satisfaction I feel when I know I am doing something that is making things better, safer, more orderly, healthy and beautiful both for myself and others which has nothing to do with money or some outer reward. I think this is true for all people even the ones who fail to notice it because of a sense of desperation, distraction and misdirection/misunderstanding. This spiritual blindness is more dangerous and debilitating than physical blindness by a long shot. People regularly fail to see that we are all connected and your individual decision to better things for others as well as yourself instead of failing to take others into account, will lead to a better experience in life for everyone including you.
For some reason, I am compelled during the month of December each year to organize some cluttered and disarrayed part of the house. And it always feels good to bring some order to the chaos.
"The performative contradiction framework is elegant."
—Thank you. Rothbard first put me onto it, and I soon realized how useful it is!
"large collectives make explicit individual consent logistically challenging which is where the friction point appears in practice."
—This is easily solved. You give valid (voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, revocable) consent to be a client of an insurance company. These are large, well-capitalized (sometimes multinational) firms that provide services and negotiate with one another through private arbitration, without ever setting foot in a government courtroom. They exchange money, resolve disputes, subrogate from one another's clients, and follow common procedures in their mutual dealings. You can withdraw your consent to be a client at any time, and choose another such firm, or none at all.
There is no reason why the same thing cannot happen with firms that provide security and justice.
I am increasingly convinced that most, if not all current systems, especially government and religions, can and should be considered cults.
And the people who profess fealty to those systems are cult members - the methodologies and practices meant to convince us (or force us or frighten us) to continue our participation in the cult are an age-old program.
So the greatest challenge we have is in choosing to leave the cults we were indoctrinated and brainwashed to accept.
We have to recognize the cult first in order to leave it.
The U.S. is not “our country.” They are not “our militaries” or “our bombs” being dropped on brown people. It is not “our national debt.”
The U.S. is not a “Christian country.”
If it didn’t require or gain our consent, then it is not OURS.
And unfortunately, all the “opposition, whistle-blowers and justice-seekers” are part of the game. They inadvertently legitimize the current system by giving the “appearance” of choice, of working to “fix” the system when no such repair will ever take place. It is the definition of “controlled opposition,” and it is meant to throw us off the scent.
The system is working as designed.
"And unfortunately, all the “opposition, whistle-blowers and justice-seekers” are part of the game. They inadvertently legitimize the current system by giving the “appearance” of choice, of working to “fix” the system when no such repair will ever take place. It is the definition of “controlled opposition,” and it is meant to throw us off the scent."
—I had this same thought after reading "The Power of the Powerless" by Vaclav Havel. "Dissidents" are still a part of the system. In a sense, their dissidence legitimizes the system. I do not recall now whether it was Havel, me, or someone else who produced that insight, however! It's just baked into my thinking now.
That said, I do not believe that most dissidents are plants, insincere, or part of the scam. They are doing what they think is right. We just have to convince them that there is a next level of freedom to reach.
There is a difference between, say, Tucker and Jimmy Dore.
I think Tucker believes what he says, but he is also very much a U.S. cult member and/or Tucker was MKUltra'd which is why he gained the position he fills. He is useful to maintain the illusion.
But my convincin' days are over.
Wake up or get the fuck out of the way.
People have to come to this on their own.
We just keep talkin the talk and walkin the walk.
Yeah, that's just it. I no longer care who is who. I cannot do anything about it anyway. We just need to move on to the sunnier uplands of a better future.
Excellent summary of the common deceptions and lack of critical and logical thought which have produced this sorry situation on our world for millennia Phillip. Conjuring, clever tricks to which so many succumb, and that some morally defective beings have developed the required skills to deceive and use to take advantage of so many with these tricks. by preying upon ignorant and weak minded gullible people who fall into the habit of believing fables because they want to or have chosen to believe.
So interesting - this romantic notion of an honorable nation that never existed.
Or a savior, who, even if he did exist beyond legend, would never tolerate the idolatory with which he is considered, or the seizure of his likeness and legacy to justify the current distorted corruption done in his name.
It is just so much easier to clothe ourselves with imaginary virtue and stolen valor than to develop those qualities in reality. Most would rather have a good excuse that they think is believable than to take personal responsibility for finding and knowing what is real and sticking with that. It takes actual effort. The difference is that the rewards are real also instead of being imaginary. People would rather live in filth and poverty and consider themselves innocent and virtuous victims than make the effort required to be free and confident creators I'm afraid.
Brilliantly writ, and I hope everyOne reads! So very, very true!
My only dispute here - and it is so minor, perhaps I should just drop it, but You know Me... LOL! I contend that morals are subjective and that Ethics are objective. You speak of "morality," but in some societies it is moral to stone a woman to death for wearing a bikini in public. It is NEVER Ethical.
The three Laws indeed cover the objective Ethics... Which I will offer again:
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
You note, I am sure, that consent is key in Ethics.
Thank You, Christopher, for this awesome piece!
Yeah, I know some people forge a careful distinction between morality and ethics, while others use them interchangeably. In my case, the reader knows through context clues that I am speaking of something objective.
I strongly suggest that they were deliberately conflated - like anarchy and pandemonium... LOL! but yeah, it's clear what You mean in Your words. Love always!
🧡 Happy New Year!
Joyous ‘rounding of the sun!!!
I went down a rabbit hole of research on the subject of calendars, time, sidereal vs. tropical, etc. etc. January 1st as New Years is, as far as I can tell, the only observance that isn't based on ANYTHING. The Romans simply moved their observance from April 1st/start of Spring to January 1st so that some regional governors could take control of a province a few months earlier.
But, it's when everyone (here) does it, so it is what it is.
Yep. The new year technically starts on (ironically?) April Fool’s Day. Haha! Indeed, it is what it is. [hugs]
During all my years in educational institutions I can never recall a class in logic or how to reason. That includes elementary, high school, community college and university graduate degrees and some post graduate studies. Sad. The ability to personally be capable of rational thought and discernment is the one thing that we pride ourselves on over all other living creatures on earth. Yet the conditions we see through all of our known history proves that we are severely mistaken in our thinking and actions, in many vital areas or this world would not be in the state it is today.
We are fortunate to have this mind well trained in this valuable ability to lay these things out so plainly that even those least gifted in these critical abilities should be capable of understanding with any effort at all. I argue that this effort is one of the most worthwhile we will ever make here.
In short I was struck by how plain and simple it really is in just these examples Christopher lays out:
"Everyone knows that consent is the difference between boxing and assault, sex and rape, borrowing and theft."
"Consent is the beating heart of morality and justice."
"Ultimately, our goal is peace and social harmony. Thus, it will help us to know what sorts of acts do require consent. We can describe these as trespasses."
"A trespass is a violation of consent within another’s rightful domain.Do not, without valid consent, damage, take, encroach, subjugate, initiate coercive force upon, or fraudulently usurp the person, property, or liberty of another."
Hey, don't trespass, even as you would not be trespassed upon! This is not rocket science for goodness sake, it explains everything we don't like about this world!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🙏🏻
"It is wrong to trespass the person, property, or liberty of another."
The exception being of course children, apprentice humans. It's the duty, the responsibility of the parents to define and delimit their offspring's doings, guiding them toward journeyman human status, setting them on the road with an adequate toolbox to face life as sovereign individuals.
A problem of course is far too many parents pass such responsibly to the government, to act in loco parentis.
The government, knowing a good thing (For those governing) when it sees it, continues to delimit and control their charges at the apprentice human stage as long as possible, "You WILL Do 'cause I Say So!" Far too many buy it, they want to be cared for rather than care.
Hence, alas, I look around and see a world chock full of 40 and fifty year old adolescents.
& yes I still delight in the idea of a distributed nation but I allow there are those who will never desire to or be able to be part of such.
Such that cannot are, such that cannot will probably in the future be, but I see no reason why we can't build better in spite of them.
"& yes I still delight in the idea of a distributed nation but I allow there are those who will never desire to or be able to be part of such."
—Right. And we must allow them to choose that, just as they must allow us to choose a new path.
"I see no reason why we can't build better in spite of them."
—We will get started and keep pressing, for generations if need be, until we get the independence we seek.
"The exception being of course children, apprentice humans."
—Yessir. I touch on that in the chart, on the left side, under the silhouettes of those beautiful parents. And I will address it in our founding documents.
"It's the duty, the responsibility of the parents to define and delimit their offspring's doings, guiding them toward journeyman human status, setting them on the road with an adequate toolbox to face life as sovereign individuals."
—This is very well said. It is a trusteeship relationship. You acquired the responsibility to care for them because you caused them to exist. The facts of nature require that we exercise authority over them, and the moral emanations of those facts require that that authority be temporary, and slowly relinquished as they are able to care for themselves.
Christopher, after this one you could probably say ‘case closed’ done. But, there’s always a but, you made the point that it’s not just government, it’s ‘everyone’ that engages in the usurpation of our ontological freedom. The ones who say, “America, love it or leave it,” or if you don’t agree with Trump, go somewhere else. Of course they don’t have power, but they consent, thereby making a majority.
I’ve always had an issue with Jefferson’s words, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Does that mean we need government to secure our rights? Does it say government would have no power without our consent? It seems to, but I would say ‘no’ to both.
There is always a but, but yeah, I no longer care. This is my case-closed. Time to build the new world.
Good question!
To me, those words from the DoI mean that government is one option, one path, that people who want to secure their rights have tried in the past, and may try again in the future.
But as Christopher (and others) have so clearly demonstrated, such a government, to be ethical, may only exercise its power in the domain of those from whom they have obtained explicit consent. (And that means consent in the manner Christopher describes above, not the vague 'social contract' bs that is usually mentioned in pathetic attempts at justifying the governmafia's criminal actions.) And in which case, it would no longer be a government per se, but more of a private security company with individual paying customers.
It has recently occurred to me that after private agencies have grown in size, mission, operating capital, etc., to the point where they can adequately defend against both criminals and invaders, the next step some of them will take is to protect their clients' sovereignty against the usurpations of government.
Yes, absolutely, this seems an obvious progression that must (and will) happen as we all continue acting to better our selves, our community, and ultimately society at large.
All the more reason for a person or group with operating capital to start buying up small private security and arbitration agencies and building the protection agencies of the future. The sooner the better!
The IRS doesn't care about your ontological commitments. Now what?
If I may be so bold, I believe you are looking for two things, so I will do my best to answer those, and then you can correct me if I have misunderstood.
1. Philosophical recognition that rights/sovereignty/whatever-you-want-to-call-it does not constitute a magical force field.
I agree. You DO have the sole dominion over yourself, and no one else has any rightful dominion whatsoever over you. However, if individuals (or organizations of individuals) do not choose to respect that, protective force may be a necessary response (and is morally justified).
2. Practical answers to the IRS problem (and all of the other similar problems for which it serves as a useful proxy).
I have written about this at great length: the problem of government is more complicated than simple crime. Protective force (to liberate oneself and all those who wish to be liberated) is, at one level of analysis, entirely justified. However, there are moral and practical complications for which other solutions are likely better. (You have written about this at length too :-)
Ultimately, I believe we need numbers and counter-power. Not counter-power in the sense of a new state to resist the old by force, but something different from anything that has ever been.
Part of the answer may lie in market anarchism. I can see private agencies taking on a greater role in protecting individuals from crime and invasion—but then, over time, having that role expand even further, to include protecting sovereignty.
Hey, it's a solution that has the virtue of not having yet been tried in the modern era! That sets it apart from all the definition-of-insanity stuff we've been trying thus far.
Ultimately, it's gonna take time.
I think we should collaborate on a friendly debate for the Advocates. We could do 400 wds back and forth. I’ve always been considered an apostate in this regard but I’m okay with that. Lemme know if this is of interest!
Hmm. I have spilled a lot of ink in multiple pieces—here and for the Advocates—arguing that we (libertarians) should not spend much time on internecine debates about minor points. It might be a bit strange and off-brand for me to engage in precisely that sort of diversion now.
This feels like the sort of thing you and I discuss over whiskey. Or maybe it's a public debate we have years from now, when we're old men and most of our more important work is done. (Besides, by that time, you will have realized I was right all along.)
The following is a supplement to my comment below. Since I replied to a comment made by Max Borders, I thought he might challenge my argument, but he did not. Recall the material I sent you showing that if any form of authoritarianism is internally consistent, it would have to be pure totalitarianism, since any form of authoritarianism that includes any element of libertarianism would necessarily be inconsistent. Then I showed that what one pure totalitarian could prohibit of his subjects, another could require, and the same totalitarian could change from prohibiting some action by his subjects to requiring it. Hence, pure totalitarianism, unlike pure libertarianism, is internally inconsistent. Thus, from pure totalitarianism, multiple instances of two contradictory propositions follow. That is, any form of authoritarianism implies at least two contradictory propositions, which can be expressed symbolically as “P” and “Not-p.” In a conditional proposition of the form “If p, then q,” the antecedent “p” is said to imply the consequent “q.” So, the first premise of my argument amounts to this: If some form of authoritarianism is correct, then both “P'' and “Not-p” are correct. An authoritarian will either accept both “P” and “Not-p” or not. If he does not, then by modus tollens, he denies the consequent of my premise, from which it follows that no form of authoritarianism is correct. Thus, by his own admission, he rejects authoritarianism. If he accepts both “P” and “Not-p,” it doesn't follow that some form of authoritarianism is correct, because affirming the consequent is invalid. Now he faces a different problem: As I showed you before, from a contradiction anything follows. By means of classical logic's principle of explosion, one can derive any proposition whatever from two contradictory propositions. For instance, by means of explosion, I can derive the following proposition: No form of authoritarianism is correct. Hence, whether the would-be authoritarian accepts both “P” and “Not-P” or not, he can't avoid rejecting authoritarianism. Any attempt to claim otherwise sends him right back into the labyrinth of explosions from which he cannot coherently emerge. I suspect that many people are libertarians because they are skilled at logic. I never had the opportunity to take a course in logic until I attended college, and then only one course was needed to satisfy a general core requirement.
If I had to guess at Max's possible response, it might be something like, "Yeah, all of that is solid logically, and yet totalitarianism still exists. What do we do about that? People do and believe illogical things. People violate the rights of others, even though it is unreasonable and morally unsupportable to do so. What do we do about that?"
He might not use the word "rights," since he tends to avoid that sort of language, but it was useful enough shorthand. I am still getting to know Max, but I suspect his reply might be something along those lines.
Nothing you, I, Max, or anyone else can say can stop a determined armed thug. Words are no defense against bullets. However, the thug won't be able to justify his behavior in the opinions of reasonable people, who should greatly outnumber him.
I can prove that the fundamental principle of authoritarianism leads to multiple instances of two contradictory propositions. An authoritarian will either accept two such propositions or not. If not, then he rejects the fundamental principle of authoritarianism and all it entails. If so, then by means of classical logic's principle of explosion, I can leave him with no position whatsoever on any issue, including authoritarianism. So either way, the authoritarian must give up authoritarianism. I've read that current evidence indicates that, on average, libertarians are more skilled at logical reasoning than those who accept other political ideologies. I propose that if more people studied logic, there would be more libertarians.
Ok, so what do we do with this? As established, these are facts in our shared reality, our existence. But how do we *live*?
I am most interested in the *philosophy*, and I need no convincing of logical framework that reflects what, to me, is inherently inarguable. But, short of completely dissolving the life I am currently connected to (my child, my trusted friends, my family) and moving to a tibetan monastery, how do we reconcile the need to earn money to pay the mortgage and participate in this society that feels so antithetical to everything right and good?
I have to buy health insurance and participate in that corruption or I can't adequately care for my son. To keep our house and ensure he is taken care of if I die, the only financially viable choice in our economy is to work for corporations or 'non-profits' (worse) and feed those beasts out of duty to remain above water and not become sick and homeless.
Some would argue it's our duty to protest, but, while i don't necessarily disagree with the right to peaceful protesting, I also view that as participation and legitimizing the entire system.
I wish these practical concerns weren't emergent and I could think and connect with other humans, and build better systems for living well. But I am in some liminal space where i feel deeper clarity on *how it is* and entirely void of clarity for *what that means*. The age-old search for purpose. What's any of it for?
Are we truly meant to trudge through a third of our lives in meaningless 'jobs' that, at best are just useless and empty but worse - contribute to the oppression and erosion of life for ourselves and others simply because we have to participate? I don't even feel depressed or hopeless about this self-imposed (?) prison - just sort of resigned.
But there has to be more. I don't even need to know what the 'more' is - but now, today, I need to know what this understanding compels me to do. How to live.
I feel your question. A lot of us do.
I sense two main themes here, which, at the risk of oversimplification, I might describe as
1) Are we legitimizing a morally problematic system by participating (and what other choice do we have)?
and
2) Is this all there is to life?
Re #1, we have to do what we have to do. As I have been writing here (https://christophercook.substack.com/t/thedistributednation) in rather extensive detail, there are no quick fixes. We have to get the project started. We have to plant trees whose boughs will shade our grandchildren.
We start building new institutions. We start living in new ways. We accept small victories and build on those. We do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We light the flame, we carry it forward, and when our time comes, we pass it on—brighter than it was when we first lit it. And we connect with others doing the same, that we might enjoy the fellow-feeling of working with, and enjoying the company of, people who feel the same.
#2 is, as you know, a perennial human question. It is easy enough to wonder why, and what's the point, as we go through the motions of life. That just speaks to our true nature as spiritual beings living in physical bodies. We do the things that life requires, and then we wonder what the larger spiritual point is.
I don't know if I have great answers. I think we may have (before we entered these bodies) decided that we wanted to experience limitations and challenges here on Earth (almost like a game). And now the point is to play the game as well as we can—to overcome those limitations and become awesome. And to have fun and do good things in the process.
And to connect with cool people who ask cool questions!
It's always a pleasure to be introduced to another freedom-oriented thinker. I appreciate your thoughts presented in this piece.
I hope you might also appreciate my thoughts on this topic, presented in rhyming format:
Circus Vulture Politics
https://poetrypinball.substack.com/p/circus-vulture-politics
Ode to Government
https://poetrypinball.substack.com/p/ode-to-government
Good to meet you. Rock on!
Great works, thank you
Please contribute your thoughts anytime. This is a group effort.
Consent is the core of our philosophy and argumentation. Thank you for your work.
We will keep pushing until our last breaths.
When most of us were born, we were picked up and held by our ankles and spanked by a nurse or doctor until we consented to the social contract. No one has asked me since if my saddle is comfortable or not. Happy 2026 everyone.
You are absolutely right. And it is time that we realized this and said NO MORE.
Happy 2026!
Brilliant!
Thank you 🙏🏻 I worked very hard on it, both to write this specific piece and also, over a number of years, to figure all this stuff out. I appreciate your acknowledgment of that effort.
It really is well done. The concept is sound, the logic pretty much flawless. Well I can't find any flaws. Well structured, excellently reasoned argument. I can see it took work. And a lot of deep thought. In short - Brilliant!
🙏🏻 🧡🔥🧡🙏🏻
It's kind of my last word on the subject, too. I have been working toward this for years. Now, a new kind of work begins—building a just world based on these principles.
Well good luck with that. A much more major undertaking to be sure.
Please continue to provide your thoughts and input to that undertaking.
Fuckin A man! Nailed it.
Thank you! It is the culmination of years of thought.
Well done Christopher.
"You can, by some act of coercion, be severed from the enjoyment of that self-ownership, but the self-ownership itself cannot be taken away by any force in the world. Your self-ownership is thus naturally exclusive and inalienable. Your personhood itself cannot be usurped or unmade. No one else can own you, and you cannot own anyone else."
Take the case of murder.
Does the murderer lose his enjoyment of self-ownership?
Is the murderer's self-ownership usurped by an authority responsible for enforcement of the prime directive?
This makes self-ownership conditional on the responsible behaviour of each individual.
What is the nature of this authority? How is it created? How is it managed and funded? How is this authority forced to conform to the prime directive?
Thank you, MCL.
I have never done this before, but I am going to have ChatGPT give you the thorough answer this deserves, but which I do not have the time to craft. (I have to work, write, take down a Christmas tree and outside lights, and prep for a day-trip tomorrow.) I just read over the answer I requested, and it is pretty much rock solid, so here you go.
(Sorry for what seems like a copout, but I really am pressed for time rn. But I am happy to discuss whatever further objections and questions you may have.)
1. Does the murderer lose his enjoyment of self-ownership?
Short answer:
No—self-ownership is not revoked, but its exercise is constrained as a consequence of violating the equal self-ownership of another.
Anarcho-capitalist framing:
Self-ownership is an ontological fact, not a reward for good behavior.
What changes after murder is not ownership of self, but liability incurred through aggression.
A murderer:
Still owns his body.
Still bears responsibility for his actions.
Is still the proper subject of restitution or punishment.
The loss of liberty (confinement, restitution, or even lethal force in some theories) is not a negation of self-ownership, but the defensive or restitutive response to a rights violation.
Rights violations generate liabilities, not metaphysical forfeitures.
An analogy often used:
If I smash your window, I do not “lose ownership” of my hands—but I may justly be restrained from using them to harm others, or compelled to compensate you.
2. Is the murderer’s self-ownership usurped by an authority responsible for enforcement of the prime directive?
Short answer:
No—because there is no monopoly authority, and enforcement does not imply ownership over the aggressor.
Key distinction:
There is a difference between:
Exercising force against someone, and
Owning that person
Anarcho-capitalism rejects the idea that:
Punishment requires sovereignty, or
Enforcement implies domination
Instead:
Enforcement is a defensive or restitutive act, grounded in the victim’s rights.
There is no transfer of self-ownership to an enforcer.
The enforcer does not become a master—only a respondent to a rights violation.
3. This makes self-ownership conditional on responsible behavior.
Short answer:
No—this confuses ownership with immunity.
Self-ownership is unconditional.
But immunity from consequences is not.
Anarcho-capitalism rejects:
“If you own yourself, nothing may ever be done to you.”
Instead, it affirms:
“If you aggress, others may justly respond to stop, restrain, or seek restitution from you.”
This is symmetrical and universal:
Your self-ownership limits my actions.
My self-ownership limits yours.
Aggression breaks that symmetry and generates liability.
This is not conditional rights—it is reciprocal rights.
4. What is the nature of this authority?
Short answer:
There is no authority in the statist sense.
Instead, anarcho-capitalism posits:
Decentralized, competing institutions arising from voluntary association.
These may include:
Private defense agencies
Arbitration courts
Restitution insurers
Community-recognized norms and protocols
Critically:
None claim final jurisdiction.
None claim monopoly power.
None possess inherent legitimacy apart from consent and performance.
Authority is functional, not sovereign.
5. How is this authority created?
Through voluntary action, such as:
Contract
Subscription
Mutual defense agreements
Insurance requirements
Reputation systems
People pre-commit to dispute-resolution mechanisms for the same reason they buy fire insurance:
Not because they expect aggression,
But because coordination reduces risk and uncertainty.
No social contract is presumed.
No universal obligation is imposed.
6. How is it managed and funded?
Managed by market incentives (competition, reputation, liability)
Funded by voluntary payment, insurance premiums, or restitution claims
Key point:
Agencies that abuse clients or overreach lose business.
Unlike states, they cannot tax, conscript, or immunize themselves.
7. How is this authority forced to conform to the prime directive?
It isn’t “forced” from above.
It is constrained by:
Competition (clients can exit)
Contract law (violations trigger liability)
Reputation systems (trust is capital)
Counter-agencies (abuse invites resistance)
Reciprocal norms (aggressors lose standing)
In short:
Enforcement agents are subject to the same non-aggression principle as everyone else.
There is no final arbiter immune from judgment.
Core Anarcho-Capitalist Principle (Summarized)
Self-ownership is inalienable.
Rights violations create liability, not forfeiture.
Enforcement does not require sovereignty.
Authority is emergent, plural, and contestable.
No institution stands outside the moral law.
Amazing answer. Thanks! Lots to chew on. Happy New Year!
Here is the version with the formatting intact: https://chatgpt.com/c/695683ee-ca74-832d-a47d-222ca19eb73e
Yeah, I know AI has problems, but I am getting a lot out of my use of it. Those are strong answers.
Happy New Year!
Your link above takes an error. No matter. The Substack formatting is fine. It would have never occurred to me to trust ChatGPT with these questions. Good to know.
"Your link above takes an error. No matter. The Substack formatting is fine. "
—I don't know how sharing Chat GPT links works; this is one of the first times I have tried it. Ah well.
"It would have never occurred to me to trust ChatGPT with these questions. Good to know.
—ChatGPT conforms itself to the user over time. I have had hundreds of thousands of words of discussions with it on this subject, so it knows what resources to look at, what intellectual tradition to draw from and speak to, etc. Thus, I believe that a fresh conversation with an "untrained" ChatGPT would not produce the same quality of answers.
I have a difficult time understanding why if I exist, I need to have a bunch of rights.
It's not something you "need" to have it is what you have always had and always will, we simply know that there are those who will violate or try to violate them. The consequences of that violation affect all of us in ways we see all around us in the world today. In this world the violators seem to gain certain valued "benefits" from their criminal actions, however that is the illusion of this world. Everyone suffers as this is a problem the solution of which involves all of us, beginning with me and you!
I agree very much!
I believe you are essentially describing what I gleaned from Mark Passio's valuable work in teaching Natural Law, and what I think of as The Law of Freedom:
"The Natural Laws governing the predictable consequences of human behavior are as Universal and Immutable as the natural laws of physics: The more people in a society act in violation of Natural Law, the more that society in the aggregate will experience war, enslavement, and poverty. And the more people act in accordance with Natural Law, the more we will experience Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity."
Thanks Nelson, yes you may receive some perceived personal benefits from violating natural law and preying on others, however being temporarily in a position with more possessions and privileges than those around you in a society that is rapidly decaying is like choosing to live in a sty because you get some more slop than the other pigs. I tend to doubt that the deep internal poverty of soul and self esteem that such suffer from is anything to bring greater happiness or satisfaction. I'd rather live in a peaceful stable place growing in beauty safety and mutual good feelings while sleeping well at night with a deep worthy self image based on real virtue instead of the pretended kind.
Thank you Hat, I agree very much again! lol
Your words bring to mind Amaterasu Solar's concept of the Betterment Ethic (https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/do-you-adhere-to-the-betterment-ethic), as a sorely needed upgrade from the 'work ethic' concept.
Also Paul Rosenberg's crucial description of, The Simplicity of the Human Condition:
"The position of a human in the known universe is, strange as this may seem, very simple to define, involving only four short points:
"1. The general nature of inanimate things is that of entropy.
"2. The general nature of living things is to reverse entropy.
"3. Humans, alone in the known universe, can reverse entropy willfully; we are able to improve the world, if and as we wish.
"4. Therefore, we give our lives direction and meaning by willfully reversing entropy, by choosing to create what we see as beneficial."
These words are not directed only to you, Hat, rather to everyone who may happen upon this post:
Please, take the time to re-read the above four points in detail, and then take the appropriate amount of time to reflect, ponder, and 'grok' their meaning in your own life.
Very insightful. There is deep soul satisfaction I feel when I know I am doing something that is making things better, safer, more orderly, healthy and beautiful both for myself and others which has nothing to do with money or some outer reward. I think this is true for all people even the ones who fail to notice it because of a sense of desperation, distraction and misdirection/misunderstanding. This spiritual blindness is more dangerous and debilitating than physical blindness by a long shot. People regularly fail to see that we are all connected and your individual decision to better things for others as well as yourself instead of failing to take others into account, will lead to a better experience in life for everyone including you.
For some reason, I am compelled during the month of December each year to organize some cluttered and disarrayed part of the house. And it always feels good to bring some order to the chaos.
🔥❤️
"The performative contradiction framework is elegant."
—Thank you. Rothbard first put me onto it, and I soon realized how useful it is!
"large collectives make explicit individual consent logistically challenging which is where the friction point appears in practice."
—This is easily solved. You give valid (voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, revocable) consent to be a client of an insurance company. These are large, well-capitalized (sometimes multinational) firms that provide services and negotiate with one another through private arbitration, without ever setting foot in a government courtroom. They exchange money, resolve disputes, subrogate from one another's clients, and follow common procedures in their mutual dealings. You can withdraw your consent to be a client at any time, and choose another such firm, or none at all.
There is no reason why the same thing cannot happen with firms that provide security and justice.