In 2022, I finally completed a book upon which I had been working for many years (and which I am now publishing here). I ended the writing phase open to the possibility that anarcho-libertarians are correct—that the most moral system is one in which any functions currently performed by government are entirely devolved to private organizations and voluntary individual choice. Nonetheless, I still leaned toward the belief that a minarchic government (a government so small that it “barely escapes being no government at all”) would probably be better.
My reasoning was simple: a minimal government, I believed, would better help us achieve the sweet spot in which enjoyment of individual rights is maximized and disruptions thereto are minimized—that a little bit of taxation and a single set of enforceable rules of justice would produce a slightly better result than a purely anarcho-libertarian condition. Obviously this view is not unique to me: it was the belief of the American Founders and the classical-liberal philosophers from whose well they drew…though the amount of government I believed would help achieve this “sweet spot” was even smaller than the limited government of the Founders’ vision.
In the months following the book’s completion, however, many of the logical conclusions I had reached—about the realities of government and the nature of human rights and freedom—continued to gel, and a question began to beat louder and louder in my brain:
Is any amount of government morally allowable?
During that period, I also began reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, which raised the din of that question to a roar. Before I had even finished Hoppe’s book, I steered the ship of my thoughts on a new course. I began scrawling notes and making mental flow charts (a process I use to think things through). I would not say that my thinking on the matter is ‘complete’—there may be no such thing as a perfect or final answer—but the premises and conclusions I am discovering are becoming increasingly difficult to deny. Collectively, the arguments pave a straight road to a provocative realization: that no form of involuntary governance or “social contract” is morally or ontologically permissible, and that secession therefrom—even by a single individual—must be allowed.
I am obviously not the first to reach this place, but I have gotten there in my own way and in my own time, and I would like to share my pathway with you. I am open to any discussion on the subject (though I confess I am hoping for something more than the boilerplate “Without government, we would all be clubbing each other for rat meat” argument).
There are two ways to sum up the point I have reached thus far: a simple, intuitive way, and a more complex series of syllogistic and philosophical arguments. Let us begin with the former:
Imagine you are in a dialogue with someone and you pose the following question:
Why is slavery morally impermissible?
Let us set aside the weirdos, monsters, and moral relativists who say that it isn’t, and just focus on normal people for a moment—all of whom will hold that, for one reason or another, slavery is, in a universal and absolute sense, morally impermissible. What sorts of reasons are such people likely to give?
“It is wrong to force people to labor against their will.”
Indeed it is, sir. But note that government does that exact thing. In fact, that is how government gets all of its money.
“It is wrong to force one person to labor for the benefit of another.”
Yes, ma’am, it is. And government does that too.
“Slavery is an involuntary arrangement to which the slave did not consent.”
Did you agree to be governed? Did you sign the “social contract”? Did anyone you know sign it? Is it even possible to sign it?
“Slavery is an involuntary arrangement from which the slave is forcibly prevented from escaping.”
Can you unilaterally opt out of the social contract? If you declare independence and allodial title over your own land, you will be attacked and put in jail. If you resist, you will be killed. If you leave and try to go to another place, you will simply be put into another version of the same arrangement.
“It is morally impermissible (and ontologically impossible) for one person to own another.”
Government subjects you to an involuntary arrangement in which they can force you to labor for them and for others. An arrangement to which you did not formally consent and cannot escape. An arrangement from which you cannot withdraw your “tacit” consent without being attacked and killed. An arrangement the totality of which is backed up by the threat and use of physical punishment. Governments are certainly ACTING as if they own you.
At some point, we start to veer dangerously close to a distinction without a difference.
An intellectual clerisy, working in service to the state, has been making the argument for thousands of years that we only have two choices: involuntary governance or chaotic anarchy. They cannot envision (or deny the possibility of) any third option. Every movie and show in the post-apocalyptic genre reinforces the mythology: it’s government or it’s The Walking Dead. Pick your poison.
If you buy into that argument (as I once did), you are put into a very difficult position: The belief that our only “good” option is to empower something that shares its most fundamental characteristics in common with chattel slavery. Governments may not always be as bad or as comprehensive in their degree of control (though a few certainly have done their level best). But they are all—monarchies and democracies alike—categorically forms of enslavement of the individual human person. They are inescapable, involuntary arrangements backed up by violence.
I recognize the provocative implications here. If slavery is morally impermissible, then surely involuntary governance must also be. This would mean that unilateral secession, by any person or or group of persons acting in concert, is morally allowable and must be allowed. This would require a change to the way things have been done in most places for nearly all of recorded history.
Why should any individual (who has not initiated force against anyone) be forced, by any external party, to do anything or live any particular way? How is that moral—especially if there might be another way?1 I refuse to surrender to the idea that what we have now, and what we have had for the last 10,000 years, constitutes the only option for humanity, and the highest possible evolution in human social organization.
In order to justify my thinking in this, however, I had to go much deeper. To that end, I drew from and expanded upon arguments I make in my book to create a more complete case. That case is, at a fundamental level, fairly simple. However, in order to understand it more fully, I had to chart it. That chart is below. It begins with, and builds upon, two natural facts, and then by means of syllogisms and other reasoning reaches four main conclusions.
I love trees and tend to see these flow charts as working up from the ground (brute facts and axioms) and branching through a variety of arguments to a canopy of conclusions. Thus, this chart should be read from the bottom-up. There is no exact correct pathway; just start at the bottom and work your way around through the arrows. There is a lot to take in, but if you are patient, it will start to make sense. (Feel free to download it if you cannot see a larger version in your browser.)
A long train of thought—stretched across years of research, conversations, and plumbing the philosophical depths—has led to this place. I apologize for dumping so information upon you all at once, but if these conclusions are correct, then the implications are truly profound. So we have to get the philosophical math right.
And if that math is right, then the entire way in which human societies are arranged has got to change.
(Chart updated March ‘24)
Ireland had no formal government, and conducted their affairs using a system of private law and elected “kings” (who had very little actual power), for 1,000 years. So there’s an example of a third option that actually worked. And that is one more example than socialism has ever had.
This is perfect, I apologize for my writing skills, you are helping me hone them and I deeply appreciate you for that gift. Agree on all points. Thank you. The last paragraph explains premeditation (coercive) murder, killing, etc. Again, I go back to Cain and Abel, even the slightest bit of premeditated evil, can lead to destruction on a worldwide scale. It’s the repercussions that kill us. All we need is unconditional love and understanding. Thank you, Chris, I love peoples minds. You are brilliant!
Upon going over this in my mind, several times, involuntary governance, is the choice of the governing body, which leads to the answer, does man have free will? Or are we a systemic machine? The answer is both. Some people need a leader, some people are leaders. As I read more, I understood the comment. Free will is a gift by God for the people who do understand His natural law, which in turn, is our natural law. We were made in His likeness/ image to the core.
For example, you are a philosophical writer, and you gravel with free will or the bad/evil factor. Influenced by people who are adherently bad/good; natural law is part part of both. God gave us the “inherited right”, predestined us all with one stipulation; free will.
Why would He do such a thing? He loves us so much, He gives us the choice of what to believe and who to love. Now the question becomes deeper for us, do we use free will to be good or bad? The answer is your choice. People in general are not bad or evil. People are genuinely good.(Thank you to my rose colored glasses) It’s the influence of others whom turn a person around. So the question will always remain, why the choice? My answer, my opinion. God gave us free will to love Him wholeheartedly. I give my free will to Him as he loves me, I love Him. There cannot be a cold answer to this question. There is black and white for Him, but it is always a grey area for us. As we have the choice of religion, enslavement, being evil or being good, He has given us guidelines, rules and law. The 10 commandments, which we have adopted into our lives, “thou shall not murder”, for example, which seems like a natural law, but when you are hungry, what will you do to live? Kill or die? Again, your choice. Let’s talk about premeditated murder, ie; Cain and Abel. The first horrific murder committed by a man, over what? Jealousy. Which is another emotion we should not entertain, as it leads us down the path to an evil result. Always. You can’t talk your way out of jealousy, nor the 10 commandments or the seven things in which the Lord hates, and the Beatitudes. Some may view this as poetry, some of us view this as “our” laws, to live by. It seems like I twist and turn, as free will is so deep to grasp. I would love to hear/see your comment. I would also love to have a podcast with you about this. It’s an amazing topic, and we should dive down the rabbit hole of free will.
Existentialism is one of the philosophers greatest tools, yet it deals with the dualities of man and the mind.