Before force of any kind is considered, the first level of defense is economic. IF you do this, we will refuse to trade with you. And violence is committed by individuals, not kingdoms. Who will you burn? And who then is justified in burning your loved ones? Does everyone whose countries have been harmed (a mild term, that) by US politician warmongers have the right to put a target on my back?
In indigenous matrix cultures, a wrong done by an individual would cause the entire tribe to offer reparations, often symbolic, but showing that they would take responsibility for their own. This was self-preservation from the other tribe's retaliation, but also showing that it's a failure of the whole, that needs to be corrected. I'd like to see a return to that responsibility.
"a wrong done by an individual would cause the entire tribe to offer reparations, often symbolic, but showing that they would take responsibility for their own."
—This is cool so long as it is a voluntary choice by tribe members. But if anyone is forced, that becomes a forcing of group guilt/identity guilt, and identity guilt is a great evil. But if this is an aspect of a culture, and they all choose to do it out of a sense of responsibility, then that's great!
I'm so happy to be having this conversation with you, Christopher, here and in Antila's note. As you know from there, I've been working on designing an anarchist economy for over a decade. Often the sticking point for people is "But what about defense?" Defense, of course, is a misnomer for the US, who hasn't had a war on home ground since 1812 (and then the indigenous were on the other side.) But it's caused me to think through how you could address that problem in an anarchist economy.
In my recent post, Douglas Jack talks about the 50 Axis nations that were in an alliance for peace before and during WWII. That was news to me but showed that people are not who we've been told: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/indigenous-self-generating.
I agree completely about collective and identity guilt, which is how we're being manipulated now. Where I live, in California, the rights of homeless transients, immigrants, students, tourists and developers are all prioritized over families. Along with providing the means--through the mortgage--for each community to take care of itself, I think that the homeless should be returned to where they have family or were born. And there should be a 5-yr moratorium on students. That could be a first step in people taking responsibility within their communities.
"But what about defense?" Defense, of course, is a misnomer for the US, who hasn't had a war on home ground since 1812 (and then the indigenous were on the other side.) But it's caused me to think through how you could address that problem in an anarchist economy."
The stuff on defense against foreign states is toward the end of the chapter, but the whole chapter is great. In fact, the whole book is.
Also, Hoppe and Harry Browne both noted something that…well, it was one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments, the first time I heard it.
Basically…
In a region with a state, all an invading power has to do is defeat the army, force the government to sue for peace and then they either raise their flag over the capital or they get a client/puppet state. Either way, they now have control of all the hierarchy and infrastructure provided by the defeated government.
By contrast, in a stateless region, there is no one thing to take over. The invader must pacify every square inch. Every farm house. Every street corner. Every angry armed person (and whatever private defense agency of which they may be a customer). It is just not worth it!
That's so funny. It's exactly how I always answer that question. And Johan Galtung, the founder of Peace & Conflict Studies I quoted in my note, says it's the reason that Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires. Like Switzerland, it's all little cantons. There's no one to hand over all the power.
Yes, I think we might be in agreement on a number of things.
I took a gander at your link after I sent my reply and had to laugh. My book, which challenges 28 paradigms, starts out with democracy and how it was a trick to keep small landowners from siding with the landless, colonized and enslaved for what they were revolting for--anarchy. Instead it gave them hierarchy, the inheritance order of archons, so they could work their way up by supporting the military with their extracted wealth. So chalk that one up to our agreements too ;-)
I don't see it as being as much a statement of foreign policy, but rather more of a personal statement like, "Hey, I am just minding my own business, but if evil men initiate violence against me, I am going to respond with defensive force." Obviously that is similar, but there are perhaps some subtle differences. (And of course it's a song, so it is open for lots of different interpretations.)
But I do hear what you hear—a sense that his response might be disproportionate. Obviously, technically, protective force must fit the crime. You mustn't burn down someone's house because they dented your bumper.
And, of course, you are correct that innocent parties must never suffer for others' crimes. All defensive force must be properly targeted to the wrongdoers, and no one else.
If you never want anything from someone else, you never need to manipulate them. Living without the need to be manipulating people or anything else is beyond refreshing. It's living from your true self. People manipulate others because they live in constant fear of losing something or perhaps the fear of never having enough. It is always a false fear.
Interesting thoughts. I do think that the top-level dichotomy in human life is in the ways people go about getting the things needed to survive and thrive: coercion or persuasion.
Yes, Christopher, I consider Humans require only ONE negative moral rule which ousts all would-be rulers, and as you wrote above, it is the Non-Aggression Principle, NAP, which everyone must take once slapped awake from the Nightmare of History (first use of physical force).
And the NAP must be defined ONLY as THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF THE FIRST USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR DIRECT THREAT THEREOF with the only exception being if such first use of physical force is employed to save a Human Life.
Of course this then, correctly, morally speaking, permits DEFENSIVE, SECONDARY RESPONSIVE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE FOR PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY.
All the rest of discussion is, for me, would be theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--except for: How do we justify the NAP?
And as proto Voluntaryist Max Stirner expressed, Might trumps (ugh) Right.
Human Rights are imaginary, religious "Rites". They are not "Natural" or "God given" for me.
The only philosophical foundation for the NAP I consider is Kant's "Universalization".
If every Human on the planet used first physical force on the person next to them, what would be the self-evident result?
What would be the self-evident result if every Human on the planet never used first physical force?
I am perfectly content to know that the universalization argument is out there and being used. I mean it—the more arguments, the merrier. I do not believe there has to be just one argument.
But for me, rights are as natural as the sun rising in the morning!
SO IS BEING HIT ON THE HEAD TO TAKE YOUR FOOD, UNFORTUNATELY, "NATURAL" (pace, Hobbes and Rousseau).
To practice the NAP I consider takes some "unnatural" doing, unfortunately, to lift the individual out of the Child Abuse (see Lloyd deMause) Authoritarian Family/Clan Ma-FemaleMatrix/Pa-MalePattern and make him/her responsible for their freedom to do no physical harm.
"Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed." Francis Bacon
Not meaning to offend or be overly contentious, but why I want the "unnaturalness" of the NAP to be signified is that we Humans are emotionally motivated animals (see Jaak Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience) and I consider our evolutionary derived default setting is "Authoritarian Obedience" as inherited and taught by the Family/Clan Original Collective.
To free one's mind and reset it from that physical brain-mind program setting/instruction takes much doing—is not “natural” except in the sense that all is “Natural” in terms of an objective, physical world working by “natural laws” as discovered by the Scientific Method.
This “Great Reset” begins and ends with Peaceful Parenting which I believe is the only way we can break the Vicious Cycle of Child Abuse/Neglect (the Damned and Damaged Children becoming Damning and Damaging Parents) that results in the first use of physical force to solve Human Needs rather than voluntaryist mutual consent.
Which is why I teach Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.), the Peaceful Parenting Method of mutually and voluntarily meeting needs.
Here is to Peaceful Parenting as Responsible Freedom.
And it does not seem overly contentious to me. You are expressing your beliefs, which is exactly what we’re all supposed to do here in the comment threads of the FreedomScale. That, and find new friends if possible.
My answer will be truncated, however, by the fact that it is 8 PM and I my brain is pretty much toast. All I can say right now is that I make a pretty extensive argument for rights being rooted in nature in my book, installments of which I have begun releasing in this space. Those show up throughout the middle section of the book. Too tired to summarize now. 🙂
Christopher, our “Free Friends Forum: Abandoned To Ourselves—Naturalism, Humanism, Individualism” is launched this coming Wednesday and I will email you an invitation and look forward to your participation where ideas like “Natural Rights” will be explored and hopefully understood in the Spinozean sense:
“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.” Baruch Spinoza
Please accept this in the spirit intended. I am sure that By now You certainly realize it.
For hundreds of years there has been an evil despotic regime operating to enslave the planet. They use murder, intimidation, manipulation, coercion, blackmail, bribery and they have amassed immense resources to accomplish their evil ends.
They believe that they OWN everything here on earth. They will do Anything to make humanity bend their collective knees to their whims and proclamations.
IMO 95% of humanity will peacefully coexist with each other and in fact support each other without this evil influence interfering and perverting our existence.
Some people believe that War and mutual destruction is part of human nature. I disagree. These are the tools of these evil bastards at work.
They distort reality and create confusion, conflict and chaos, to distract us and convince us to suspect, hate, and attack each other.
I do accept it in that spirit, and I largely agree.
Those whom you describe are in a state of war with the rest of humanity, and deserve no less than destruction for it.
But…
Is that the most effective way to be rid of them? Is some sort of bloody "revolution" the shortest route to freedom? I am not sure. Maybe. But maybe not…
Probably we should define what is freedom first.I think freedom has two aspects, one is personal freedom, we can be in jail or under force slavery but can be free, it is a human right to be intrinsically free, the Creator has gave us that freedom when He gave us “ free will “ and the inherent characteristic of that it’s RESPONSIBILITY and what is that about? The responsibility to choose good over evil ( sadly we have normalized evil so people are confused sometimes). A free man is a man that cannot be bought and that always will choose good. Then we have societal freedom, the freedom named in the constitution and protect it by it, speech, enterprise, move around and wherever I want and persue of any goal that in order to do it I don’t hurt anyone. So, when BLM comes to my downtown and destroy my coffee shop , the movement though they have the freedom to do it it is hurting a small business and me as a customer, that’s not freedom and my conclusion will annoy a lot of people for sure but I have the right to say this, freedom is not for everyone as democracy is not for everyone, you need to have a certain level of maturity and understanding of responsibility among other things. Homes and schools are failing miserably teaching basic citizens civics. In Greece society, not everyone was a citizen, and the system was ruled only by citizens, that was the democratic principle, the rule of the people meaning of the citizens meaning the ones who were qualified.
Probably it would be a good idea that people need to pass an exam before voting or as my husband thinks, only people who pay taxes should vote because that is our money, the one that holds the system but that it has been used to support wars and debauchery all over, how many millions are we sending away and our own people doesn’t have what they need?? But the rulers don’t have morals and that the problem, they don’t care at all about us, they have a big responsibility that comes with power and freedom but they misused for their benefit, why are not in jail? Because it’s a mob, they protect each other that by the way that’s it’s the definition of corporation. I have plenty of hope that if it is a country that can pull it off and resist agenda 2030
Is the United States but the path has to change 180 degrees and people has to get into things deeply or get out of the way. When we put together 2 million signatures to evict Newsom and we got the recall voting Gavin won by 3 millions voting for him, how is that possible? He got 1 million or around and we were more but do you think that really matters, that the minute many became anarchist and lost faith in the system and I understand it, but I don’t think anarchism is the way to go, it’s not practical and Rose said that when people critized him, that he knows it not would be a “ pure” self governance in the beginning because that its impossible. We have built a wonderful civilization, not perfect but still the best we have came up with. Institutions are not the problem, people are. Honor, responsibility, discipline , common good. We have a very short constitution and very effective if we practice it, but we have to exercise goodness and love, not fake love, the love that means Charitas, desire for the good and well beings of others, our selfishness took us to here.
I understand all that you said. Up until quite recently, I shared most of those sentiments.
But now, I am convinced of Lysander Spooner's logic—either the Constitution has authorized the kind of government we have now, or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way, it has failed.
And I see no possibility of making anything other than marginal changes to it. I do not see any evidence, past or present, that suggests we will ever be able to make anything other than marginal changes.
Totally, sadly we are so divided that we cannot have a respectful conversation about politics with anyone anymore, I think propaganda works and we have to try very hard not to fall into narrative, I agree about government power and overreach but I don’t fall for the delusion as libertarians fall ( in spite I would vote Ron or better Randy Paul in a second, i admire them because of their decency, consistency and they speak out about the issues) but the “ market doesn’t regulate itself not in a big scale, the markets are ruled by the banks and the investors and the billionaires, they are the ones who control the economies , I used to have bitcoin but once the big banks started to buy bitcoins I lost interest. So we need a government that start to work for us and protect or legislate that nobody powerful take advantage of US THE PEOPLE, I know I am a dreamer. In my humble opinion ideologies have to die, we have to United for the common good, and use common sense policies and be truthful not deceptive about “ hidden agendas” and that it’s why is so important what do you do and many people do, discuss ideas and expose the falsehood and intentions of these globalists and 2030 agenda and its 17 goals, they are so ridiculous written and they admitted that they can stop poverty in 7 years, so??? We know what cause poverty, we know that with the money we are giving Ukraine we can solve the homeless issue in America, we know that they are criminals and we know that if we don’t defend the second amendment we are done us a country, I say this beca Google and allies are putting in place forms to “ police the thoughts”. The FB CEO said that they respect freedom of speech but what they don’t want is “ the reach of that speech “, and she said it aloud, soft power and canceling you but not openly but mechanically.
I feel you on all these points. I am going to respond to a few with which might seem like pushback, but with what I would prefer to think of as food for thought.
"Totally, sadly we are so divided that we cannot have a respectful conversation about politics with anyone anymore"
—We are doing so here. Here at the Freedom Scale, and on Substack more generally. It's a good start. Everything good starts somewhere…
"market doesn’t regulate itself not in a big scale, the markets are ruled by the banks and the investors and the billionaires, they are the ones who control the economies"
—But how much of this power would they have if government did not exist? If they did not receive special favors and protections. If the could not print currency and then benefit from the Cantillon effect. If we weren't forced accept their schemes and pay to bail them out. If ALL they could do to become successful is provide things that people want and need.
"US THE PEOPLE, I know I am a dreamer. In my humble opinion ideologies have to die, we have to United for the common good, and use common sense policies"
—Who are "the people"? Who decides what the "common good" is? One of the reasons I am an anarchist and support self-government and 100% voluntary association is precisely because answering those questions is impossible. There is no "the people." There are only individuals. There is no "common good." There are many individual goods, and those differ. Indeed, as well-meaning as they are, phrases like "we, the people" and "the common good" are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You are, of course, correct in your diagnosis of all the problems. But the solution does not lie in collective solutions and attempts to impose our own vision on everyone. All impositions—by the globalists or by us or anyone else—must cease.
Not problem, don’t have to explain. But anarchism is self defeating, and believe me I watched The Jones Plantation and I believe in freedom only if that freedom in terms of not aggression and respect for the other as the other also respect me as you well explained but it’s not practical at all, the real anarchism is when people govern themselves but in order to do that we need to follow principles and be in agreement of those principles and historically anarchism uses violence and chaos, in order to build something we have to put effort. Regarding the banks you are correct, we have government working since 1871 with the government, I don’t know if you read the Jeckil Island book by Griffin, also you need to know that legally this country is a Corporation, the State of Maryland where Washington DC is it’s a big territory for the world for the rich to invest. Now, you asked who decide what’s good, I am not a relativist, I think that are principles that are intrinsically good for all, and they are so universal and ingrained in the human psyches that different cultures have them. But in a nutshell, a principle is good when the result is conductive to the humans development and a peaceful society. We are at the moment destroying children and people lives so if freedom means that, to have the right to legally sterilized children with hormones to suppress their normal and natural development? I don’t want that kind of freedom, freedom with moral principles is savagery, it’s coming back to the Barbarians ords or human sacrifices that by the way we still perform.
" I think that are principles that are intrinsically good for all"
—Yes, there are indeed. That is why, in this article, I specify SHOULD vs. MUST/NOT. The MUST/NOT is not negotiable.
BUT…
In a truly free world, some people might choose to live in an enclave that applies rules under which i would not want to live. As long as it is consensual for them to participate, and equally consensual for me to refuse to participate, I think that is the best we can hope for.
Otherwise, we are left with the endless war of factions trying to gain political control over a whole system so they can force their views upon everyone in that system. That, to me, is worse than the risk that some people somewhere might be living in a way with which I disapprove.
"the right to legally sterilized children with hormones to suppress their normal and natural development? I don’t want that kind of freedom"
—Yes, it is appalling. And it is happening now, under the current system. Under "democracy." You cannot opt out. You cannot opt your children out (unless you can afford to pay school taxes and private school tuition). And the notion that we are somehow going to gain control over this whole system and "change it back tot he way it was" is, to me, a pipe dream. There is no "way it was." This is a one-way trip. What we want now is to be able to escape it.
I agree and very well explained the concepts of protective force and cohesive force, we cannot all be martyrs. The song is very powerful what make wonder how would it be a world were humans can govern themselves? Because that’s the root of all problems in the world, how do we behave. It’s very simple, a virtuous person has his or her sight in something bigger of themselves, a purpose, and they understand what life is about so their decisions are in that frame of mind . The opposite is what is happening in the world, we are ruled by megalomaniacs , psychopaths and narcissists who believe they are Gods, they really believe it, if you listen to Billy Boy talking is the first thing that is self evident, the guy want to stop the rays from the Sun!!! And he supported an experiment of this kind not other that Sweden!!! So not only he thinks is God but he is an imbecile and I wonder if he has “ sold” his soul already. Zachary King, once the more powerful Satanist Priest worked with him to “ make some things happen “, he is not the only one, the powerful are very religious, wrong God though. He responded to the question if he believes in God “ I don’t have evidence of it”, it looks like the guy has his head in some other part of his body because just to look around the created world and its complexity we know that there’s an intelligence behind everything that exists, we can’t create anything from nothing, if we put together the most genius people in the world they cannot create anything from nothing, we cannot create one atom neither one molecule. Anyway, a pleasure to read your essays.
Many libertarian and anarchist thinkers have noted the tendency of government to attract psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and megalomaniacs. For obvious reasons.
This seems to me—to beat my drum as always—evidence that we cannot allow ANY involuntary government over us.
Agreed. I too would prefer avoiding violence to end violence. I also can’t see another route at this time. Perhaps there are plans afoot to achieve their destruction without violence. Most people would rejoice. Either way. 🙏🇺🇸🙏
Maybe that is even the best and simplest way to do break it down for people. "Here is our one rule for objective morality. Here is our one rule for subjective morality."
I get the same look. Or worse, derision and scorn.
Sometimes, even normally polite people turn rude. Perhaps because anarchism is outside the acceptable range of the Overton Window, and that just freaks them out.
This book is written from a classical-liberal perspective. The subject is not anarchist, but it is the book that, as I researched and wrote, slowly made me into a libertarian, a minarchist, and finally an anarchist.
That book is completely written.
I will also soon begin releasing installments of a new book I am working on, with some practical ideas for implementing anarchism in the real world right now, on a big scale.
Both books are for paid subscribers. If you do decide to become one, I think you will be pleased by both.
Yes, "Thou shall not steal" can indeed be deemed a single categorical imperative…IF viewed in the following way:
that all acts of force against an individual are violations of that individual's self-ownership,
that self-ownership confers a property right (dispositive decision-making authority) over one's own person, and
THUS that violations thereof are a kind of theft against that property right.
The reason, I believe, that libertarians prefer the NAP formulation is that it requires fewer words and less supplementary explanation. But most libertarians would agree on the theft argument, in that sense.
I answer that question using a series of syllogisms. If the premises are true (and I strongly hold that they are) and the conclusions follow from the premises (and I contend that they do), then self-ownership is natural and inalienable.
Before force of any kind is considered, the first level of defense is economic. IF you do this, we will refuse to trade with you. And violence is committed by individuals, not kingdoms. Who will you burn? And who then is justified in burning your loved ones? Does everyone whose countries have been harmed (a mild term, that) by US politician warmongers have the right to put a target on my back?
In indigenous matrix cultures, a wrong done by an individual would cause the entire tribe to offer reparations, often symbolic, but showing that they would take responsibility for their own. This was self-preservation from the other tribe's retaliation, but also showing that it's a failure of the whole, that needs to be corrected. I'd like to see a return to that responsibility.
"a wrong done by an individual would cause the entire tribe to offer reparations, often symbolic, but showing that they would take responsibility for their own."
—This is cool so long as it is a voluntary choice by tribe members. But if anyone is forced, that becomes a forcing of group guilt/identity guilt, and identity guilt is a great evil. But if this is an aspect of a culture, and they all choose to do it out of a sense of responsibility, then that's great!
I'm so happy to be having this conversation with you, Christopher, here and in Antila's note. As you know from there, I've been working on designing an anarchist economy for over a decade. Often the sticking point for people is "But what about defense?" Defense, of course, is a misnomer for the US, who hasn't had a war on home ground since 1812 (and then the indigenous were on the other side.) But it's caused me to think through how you could address that problem in an anarchist economy.
In my recent post, Douglas Jack talks about the 50 Axis nations that were in an alliance for peace before and during WWII. That was news to me but showed that people are not who we've been told: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/indigenous-self-generating.
I agree completely about collective and identity guilt, which is how we're being manipulated now. Where I live, in California, the rights of homeless transients, immigrants, students, tourists and developers are all prioritized over families. Along with providing the means--through the mortgage--for each community to take care of itself, I think that the homeless should be returned to where they have family or were born. And there should be a 5-yr moratorium on students. That could be a first step in people taking responsibility within their communities.
"But what about defense?" Defense, of course, is a misnomer for the US, who hasn't had a war on home ground since 1812 (and then the indigenous were on the other side.) But it's caused me to think through how you could address that problem in an anarchist economy."
—Hans-Hermann Hoppe has some good answers. See Chapter 12 here: https://ia804707.us.archive.org/21/items/HoppeDemocracyTheGodThatFailed/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
The stuff on defense against foreign states is toward the end of the chapter, but the whole chapter is great. In fact, the whole book is.
Also, Hoppe and Harry Browne both noted something that…well, it was one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments, the first time I heard it.
Basically…
In a region with a state, all an invading power has to do is defeat the army, force the government to sue for peace and then they either raise their flag over the capital or they get a client/puppet state. Either way, they now have control of all the hierarchy and infrastructure provided by the defeated government.
By contrast, in a stateless region, there is no one thing to take over. The invader must pacify every square inch. Every farm house. Every street corner. Every angry armed person (and whatever private defense agency of which they may be a customer). It is just not worth it!
That's so funny. It's exactly how I always answer that question. And Johan Galtung, the founder of Peace & Conflict Studies I quoted in my note, says it's the reason that Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires. Like Switzerland, it's all little cantons. There's no one to hand over all the power.
Yes, I think we might be in agreement on a number of things.
"Yes, I think we might be in agreement on a number of things."
—I would imagine so!
I took a gander at your link after I sent my reply and had to laugh. My book, which challenges 28 paradigms, starts out with democracy and how it was a trick to keep small landowners from siding with the landless, colonized and enslaved for what they were revolting for--anarchy. Instead it gave them hierarchy, the inheritance order of archons, so they could work their way up by supporting the military with their extracted wealth. So chalk that one up to our agreements too ;-)
I don't see it as being as much a statement of foreign policy, but rather more of a personal statement like, "Hey, I am just minding my own business, but if evil men initiate violence against me, I am going to respond with defensive force." Obviously that is similar, but there are perhaps some subtle differences. (And of course it's a song, so it is open for lots of different interpretations.)
But I do hear what you hear—a sense that his response might be disproportionate. Obviously, technically, protective force must fit the crime. You mustn't burn down someone's house because they dented your bumper.
And, of course, you are correct that innocent parties must never suffer for others' crimes. All defensive force must be properly targeted to the wrongdoers, and no one else.
If you never want anything from someone else, you never need to manipulate them. Living without the need to be manipulating people or anything else is beyond refreshing. It's living from your true self. People manipulate others because they live in constant fear of losing something or perhaps the fear of never having enough. It is always a false fear.
Interesting thoughts. I do think that the top-level dichotomy in human life is in the ways people go about getting the things needed to survive and thrive: coercion or persuasion.
Yes, Christopher, I consider Humans require only ONE negative moral rule which ousts all would-be rulers, and as you wrote above, it is the Non-Aggression Principle, NAP, which everyone must take once slapped awake from the Nightmare of History (first use of physical force).
And the NAP must be defined ONLY as THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF THE FIRST USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR DIRECT THREAT THEREOF with the only exception being if such first use of physical force is employed to save a Human Life.
Of course this then, correctly, morally speaking, permits DEFENSIVE, SECONDARY RESPONSIVE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE FOR PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY.
All the rest of discussion is, for me, would be theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--except for: How do we justify the NAP?
And as proto Voluntaryist Max Stirner expressed, Might trumps (ugh) Right.
Human Rights are imaginary, religious "Rites". They are not "Natural" or "God given" for me.
The only philosophical foundation for the NAP I consider is Kant's "Universalization".
If every Human on the planet used first physical force on the person next to them, what would be the self-evident result?
What would be the self-evident result if every Human on the planet never used first physical force?
Throw away your pin. Rule yourself only.
Scire licit. Sapere Aude!
Everything Voluntary, Do No Harm.
I am perfectly content to know that the universalization argument is out there and being used. I mean it—the more arguments, the merrier. I do not believe there has to be just one argument.
But for me, rights are as natural as the sun rising in the morning!
SO IS BEING HIT ON THE HEAD TO TAKE YOUR FOOD, UNFORTUNATELY, "NATURAL" (pace, Hobbes and Rousseau).
To practice the NAP I consider takes some "unnatural" doing, unfortunately, to lift the individual out of the Child Abuse (see Lloyd deMause) Authoritarian Family/Clan Ma-FemaleMatrix/Pa-MalePattern and make him/her responsible for their freedom to do no physical harm.
"Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed." Francis Bacon
Get free, stay free.
Lots of things are natural!
Be free, set free.
Not meaning to offend or be overly contentious, but why I want the "unnaturalness" of the NAP to be signified is that we Humans are emotionally motivated animals (see Jaak Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience) and I consider our evolutionary derived default setting is "Authoritarian Obedience" as inherited and taught by the Family/Clan Original Collective.
To free one's mind and reset it from that physical brain-mind program setting/instruction takes much doing—is not “natural” except in the sense that all is “Natural” in terms of an objective, physical world working by “natural laws” as discovered by the Scientific Method.
This “Great Reset” begins and ends with Peaceful Parenting which I believe is the only way we can break the Vicious Cycle of Child Abuse/Neglect (the Damned and Damaged Children becoming Damning and Damaging Parents) that results in the first use of physical force to solve Human Needs rather than voluntaryist mutual consent.
Which is why I teach Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.), the Peaceful Parenting Method of mutually and voluntarily meeting needs.
Here is to Peaceful Parenting as Responsible Freedom.
Those all seem like good objectives. Makes sense!
And it does not seem overly contentious to me. You are expressing your beliefs, which is exactly what we’re all supposed to do here in the comment threads of the FreedomScale. That, and find new friends if possible.
My answer will be truncated, however, by the fact that it is 8 PM and I my brain is pretty much toast. All I can say right now is that I make a pretty extensive argument for rights being rooted in nature in my book, installments of which I have begun releasing in this space. Those show up throughout the middle section of the book. Too tired to summarize now. 🙂
Christopher, our “Free Friends Forum: Abandoned To Ourselves—Naturalism, Humanism, Individualism” is launched this coming Wednesday and I will email you an invitation and look forward to your participation where ideas like “Natural Rights” will be explored and hopefully understood in the Spinozean sense:
“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.” Baruch Spinoza
Stay free and safe.
Please accept this in the spirit intended. I am sure that By now You certainly realize it.
For hundreds of years there has been an evil despotic regime operating to enslave the planet. They use murder, intimidation, manipulation, coercion, blackmail, bribery and they have amassed immense resources to accomplish their evil ends.
They believe that they OWN everything here on earth. They will do Anything to make humanity bend their collective knees to their whims and proclamations.
IMO 95% of humanity will peacefully coexist with each other and in fact support each other without this evil influence interfering and perverting our existence.
Some people believe that War and mutual destruction is part of human nature. I disagree. These are the tools of these evil bastards at work.
They distort reality and create confusion, conflict and chaos, to distract us and convince us to suspect, hate, and attack each other.
NO MORE. They need to be Destroyed.
Then we may see peace on Earth.
🙏🇺🇸🙏
I do accept it in that spirit, and I largely agree.
Those whom you describe are in a state of war with the rest of humanity, and deserve no less than destruction for it.
But…
Is that the most effective way to be rid of them? Is some sort of bloody "revolution" the shortest route to freedom? I am not sure. Maybe. But maybe not…
That song is how I feel when someone violates my, or others' free will.
100 percent. Leave me alone or pay the consequences.
Probably we should define what is freedom first.I think freedom has two aspects, one is personal freedom, we can be in jail or under force slavery but can be free, it is a human right to be intrinsically free, the Creator has gave us that freedom when He gave us “ free will “ and the inherent characteristic of that it’s RESPONSIBILITY and what is that about? The responsibility to choose good over evil ( sadly we have normalized evil so people are confused sometimes). A free man is a man that cannot be bought and that always will choose good. Then we have societal freedom, the freedom named in the constitution and protect it by it, speech, enterprise, move around and wherever I want and persue of any goal that in order to do it I don’t hurt anyone. So, when BLM comes to my downtown and destroy my coffee shop , the movement though they have the freedom to do it it is hurting a small business and me as a customer, that’s not freedom and my conclusion will annoy a lot of people for sure but I have the right to say this, freedom is not for everyone as democracy is not for everyone, you need to have a certain level of maturity and understanding of responsibility among other things. Homes and schools are failing miserably teaching basic citizens civics. In Greece society, not everyone was a citizen, and the system was ruled only by citizens, that was the democratic principle, the rule of the people meaning of the citizens meaning the ones who were qualified.
Probably it would be a good idea that people need to pass an exam before voting or as my husband thinks, only people who pay taxes should vote because that is our money, the one that holds the system but that it has been used to support wars and debauchery all over, how many millions are we sending away and our own people doesn’t have what they need?? But the rulers don’t have morals and that the problem, they don’t care at all about us, they have a big responsibility that comes with power and freedom but they misused for their benefit, why are not in jail? Because it’s a mob, they protect each other that by the way that’s it’s the definition of corporation. I have plenty of hope that if it is a country that can pull it off and resist agenda 2030
Is the United States but the path has to change 180 degrees and people has to get into things deeply or get out of the way. When we put together 2 million signatures to evict Newsom and we got the recall voting Gavin won by 3 millions voting for him, how is that possible? He got 1 million or around and we were more but do you think that really matters, that the minute many became anarchist and lost faith in the system and I understand it, but I don’t think anarchism is the way to go, it’s not practical and Rose said that when people critized him, that he knows it not would be a “ pure” self governance in the beginning because that its impossible. We have built a wonderful civilization, not perfect but still the best we have came up with. Institutions are not the problem, people are. Honor, responsibility, discipline , common good. We have a very short constitution and very effective if we practice it, but we have to exercise goodness and love, not fake love, the love that means Charitas, desire for the good and well beings of others, our selfishness took us to here.
I understand all that you said. Up until quite recently, I shared most of those sentiments.
But now, I am convinced of Lysander Spooner's logic—either the Constitution has authorized the kind of government we have now, or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way, it has failed.
And I see no possibility of making anything other than marginal changes to it. I do not see any evidence, past or present, that suggests we will ever be able to make anything other than marginal changes.
Fortunately, I did a bunch of reading (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism) and became convinced that anarchism really is possible. So I feel great hope.
Totally, sadly we are so divided that we cannot have a respectful conversation about politics with anyone anymore, I think propaganda works and we have to try very hard not to fall into narrative, I agree about government power and overreach but I don’t fall for the delusion as libertarians fall ( in spite I would vote Ron or better Randy Paul in a second, i admire them because of their decency, consistency and they speak out about the issues) but the “ market doesn’t regulate itself not in a big scale, the markets are ruled by the banks and the investors and the billionaires, they are the ones who control the economies , I used to have bitcoin but once the big banks started to buy bitcoins I lost interest. So we need a government that start to work for us and protect or legislate that nobody powerful take advantage of US THE PEOPLE, I know I am a dreamer. In my humble opinion ideologies have to die, we have to United for the common good, and use common sense policies and be truthful not deceptive about “ hidden agendas” and that it’s why is so important what do you do and many people do, discuss ideas and expose the falsehood and intentions of these globalists and 2030 agenda and its 17 goals, they are so ridiculous written and they admitted that they can stop poverty in 7 years, so??? We know what cause poverty, we know that with the money we are giving Ukraine we can solve the homeless issue in America, we know that they are criminals and we know that if we don’t defend the second amendment we are done us a country, I say this beca Google and allies are putting in place forms to “ police the thoughts”. The FB CEO said that they respect freedom of speech but what they don’t want is “ the reach of that speech “, and she said it aloud, soft power and canceling you but not openly but mechanically.
I feel you on all these points. I am going to respond to a few with which might seem like pushback, but with what I would prefer to think of as food for thought.
"Totally, sadly we are so divided that we cannot have a respectful conversation about politics with anyone anymore"
—We are doing so here. Here at the Freedom Scale, and on Substack more generally. It's a good start. Everything good starts somewhere…
"market doesn’t regulate itself not in a big scale, the markets are ruled by the banks and the investors and the billionaires, they are the ones who control the economies"
—But how much of this power would they have if government did not exist? If they did not receive special favors and protections. If the could not print currency and then benefit from the Cantillon effect. If we weren't forced accept their schemes and pay to bail them out. If ALL they could do to become successful is provide things that people want and need.
"US THE PEOPLE, I know I am a dreamer. In my humble opinion ideologies have to die, we have to United for the common good, and use common sense policies"
—Who are "the people"? Who decides what the "common good" is? One of the reasons I am an anarchist and support self-government and 100% voluntary association is precisely because answering those questions is impossible. There is no "the people." There are only individuals. There is no "common good." There are many individual goods, and those differ. Indeed, as well-meaning as they are, phrases like "we, the people" and "the common good" are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You are, of course, correct in your diagnosis of all the problems. But the solution does not lie in collective solutions and attempts to impose our own vision on everyone. All impositions—by the globalists or by us or anyone else—must cease.
Not problem, don’t have to explain. But anarchism is self defeating, and believe me I watched The Jones Plantation and I believe in freedom only if that freedom in terms of not aggression and respect for the other as the other also respect me as you well explained but it’s not practical at all, the real anarchism is when people govern themselves but in order to do that we need to follow principles and be in agreement of those principles and historically anarchism uses violence and chaos, in order to build something we have to put effort. Regarding the banks you are correct, we have government working since 1871 with the government, I don’t know if you read the Jeckil Island book by Griffin, also you need to know that legally this country is a Corporation, the State of Maryland where Washington DC is it’s a big territory for the world for the rich to invest. Now, you asked who decide what’s good, I am not a relativist, I think that are principles that are intrinsically good for all, and they are so universal and ingrained in the human psyches that different cultures have them. But in a nutshell, a principle is good when the result is conductive to the humans development and a peaceful society. We are at the moment destroying children and people lives so if freedom means that, to have the right to legally sterilized children with hormones to suppress their normal and natural development? I don’t want that kind of freedom, freedom with moral principles is savagery, it’s coming back to the Barbarians ords or human sacrifices that by the way we still perform.
" I think that are principles that are intrinsically good for all"
—Yes, there are indeed. That is why, in this article, I specify SHOULD vs. MUST/NOT. The MUST/NOT is not negotiable.
BUT…
In a truly free world, some people might choose to live in an enclave that applies rules under which i would not want to live. As long as it is consensual for them to participate, and equally consensual for me to refuse to participate, I think that is the best we can hope for.
Otherwise, we are left with the endless war of factions trying to gain political control over a whole system so they can force their views upon everyone in that system. That, to me, is worse than the risk that some people somewhere might be living in a way with which I disapprove.
"the right to legally sterilized children with hormones to suppress their normal and natural development? I don’t want that kind of freedom"
—Yes, it is appalling. And it is happening now, under the current system. Under "democracy." You cannot opt out. You cannot opt your children out (unless you can afford to pay school taxes and private school tuition). And the notion that we are somehow going to gain control over this whole system and "change it back tot he way it was" is, to me, a pipe dream. There is no "way it was." This is a one-way trip. What we want now is to be able to escape it.
I agree and very well explained the concepts of protective force and cohesive force, we cannot all be martyrs. The song is very powerful what make wonder how would it be a world were humans can govern themselves? Because that’s the root of all problems in the world, how do we behave. It’s very simple, a virtuous person has his or her sight in something bigger of themselves, a purpose, and they understand what life is about so their decisions are in that frame of mind . The opposite is what is happening in the world, we are ruled by megalomaniacs , psychopaths and narcissists who believe they are Gods, they really believe it, if you listen to Billy Boy talking is the first thing that is self evident, the guy want to stop the rays from the Sun!!! And he supported an experiment of this kind not other that Sweden!!! So not only he thinks is God but he is an imbecile and I wonder if he has “ sold” his soul already. Zachary King, once the more powerful Satanist Priest worked with him to “ make some things happen “, he is not the only one, the powerful are very religious, wrong God though. He responded to the question if he believes in God “ I don’t have evidence of it”, it looks like the guy has his head in some other part of his body because just to look around the created world and its complexity we know that there’s an intelligence behind everything that exists, we can’t create anything from nothing, if we put together the most genius people in the world they cannot create anything from nothing, we cannot create one atom neither one molecule. Anyway, a pleasure to read your essays.
Thank you, Adri.
Many libertarian and anarchist thinkers have noted the tendency of government to attract psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and megalomaniacs. For obvious reasons.
This seems to me—to beat my drum as always—evidence that we cannot allow ANY involuntary government over us.
Thanks Christopher. Very timely as I have been contemplating this topic.
what have you come up with?
Thank you. Will do.
Agreed. I too would prefer avoiding violence to end violence. I also can’t see another route at this time. Perhaps there are plans afoot to achieve their destruction without violence. Most people would rejoice. Either way. 🙏🇺🇸🙏
Plans ARE afoot. One good place to look i Max Borders' stack: https://underthrow.substack.com/
Also, if you stick around here, I will be revealing some ideas and plans of my own…
IMG_0308.jpeg
I just added the song "Stoney Creek" to my playlist. Nice.
I would like to see the #FreedomMusicFriday spread. Movements need music! Can you image a ton of people all talking about freedom every Friday?
So what if you start doing it too, starting with whatever Rudd song says freedom to you?
Heh. Yes.
Maybe that is even the best and simplest way to do break it down for people. "Here is our one rule for objective morality. Here is our one rule for subjective morality."
I get the same look. Or worse, derision and scorn.
Sometimes, even normally polite people turn rude. Perhaps because anarchism is outside the acceptable range of the Overton Window, and that just freaks them out.
I posit more possibilities here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/six-reasons-why-conservatives-hate-anarchism
Maybe "self-government" would be better?
Yes. Sometimes, history just ruins a word. (Does anyone name their kid Adolf anymore?)
Thank you for being here, and for your kind words.
As it happens, I just started publishing installments here of my first major book. You can see the progress here: https://christophercook.substack.com/t/thefreedomscale
This book is written from a classical-liberal perspective. The subject is not anarchist, but it is the book that, as I researched and wrote, slowly made me into a libertarian, a minarchist, and finally an anarchist.
That book is completely written.
I will also soon begin releasing installments of a new book I am working on, with some practical ideas for implementing anarchism in the real world right now, on a big scale.
Both books are for paid subscribers. If you do decide to become one, I think you will be pleased by both.
Either way, I am glad to have you here!
Perfect. Problem solved!
Yes, "Thou shall not steal" can indeed be deemed a single categorical imperative…IF viewed in the following way:
that all acts of force against an individual are violations of that individual's self-ownership,
that self-ownership confers a property right (dispositive decision-making authority) over one's own person, and
THUS that violations thereof are a kind of theft against that property right.
The reason, I believe, that libertarians prefer the NAP formulation is that it requires fewer words and less supplementary explanation. But most libertarians would agree on the theft argument, in that sense.
That's my job :-)
Please read the chart at the end of this piece: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/is-any-government-morally-permissible
I answer that question using a series of syllogisms. If the premises are true (and I strongly hold that they are) and the conclusions follow from the premises (and I contend that they do), then self-ownership is natural and inalienable.