You Are Free RIGHT NOW.

The state of nature is the only state there is. (DN 3.1)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21 | | Where: 3.0 | 3.1

Chapter 3.1
You Are Free No Matter What

---

We have now moved into the Where portion of our exploration. Where is all of this happening? Where are we? Where do we want to be?

We have already established the basics in our chapters Why and What. The distributed nation is not limited to a specific location. It is individual people in their individual locations, anywhere in the world. But it is not a digital network—or at least not exclusively so. The locations matter. The property matters. Your physical space should be as sovereign as you are.

Now it is time to dig a little deeper. We have established the essential nature of property rights in general. Now, let us consider our place not as citizens of a country or victims of a government, but as beings in the universe…

The State of Nature

The concept of the “state of nature” was used by Enlightenment philosophers as a mental construct, to aid them in their arguments against oppressive monarchial rule. They envisioned it as a hypothetical condition in the absence of government (or perhaps the primitive state that is presumed to have existed before the rise of government).

But is it just an abstract construct…or something more?

As a construct, it is certainly a useful tool. By stripping away everything we know—including the concept of government itself—we learn more about who and what we are. This is a worthy exercise, and arguably even a necessary one, when exploring and justifying the ground of human freedom.

The early classical liberals used state-of-nature argumentation to critique hereditary aristocracy, absolute monarchy, and the rest of the authoritarian problems of their day. But they also used these arguments to justify their solution: limited, democratic government.

If you are contemplating the concept of our distributed nation, then there is a good chance that you already recognize that it is not possible to maintain any government in a “limited” condition. And that even if we could do so, such government would be morally impermissible so long as it is non-consensual. (And they always are.)

Nonetheless, we do not fault our classical-liberal forebears. They did the best they could. They blazed trails of liberty for us to follow, and we are in their debt.

Back when I was writing my previous book (of the same name as this Substack), I had not yet carried the logic of classical-liberalism to its logical anarcho-libertarian conclusions. But I was getting close.

Among the many eureka! moments I had was the notion that the state of nature is not just a construct; it is reality itself:

When you’re in a moment of joy, on your death-bed, or looking into your child’s eyes…there is no state. There is just life. Not only can the state of nature exist, the state of nature is existence. Everything else is layered on top.

We form societies, and eventually governments (or those governments are simply forced upon us), but if those governments ceased to exist, the natural world would still be here. Government could cease to exist and we’d still be here. And even when you live under a set of laws, your mind is still free, and you are still free to act, in spite of whatever consequences your actions may produce.

Government did not make nature. Government did not make us. We got here first.

Part of the process of forming the distributed nation is a series of steps each of us should take as individuals. Among these is a personal declaration of independence. Each of us must recognize his or her own status as a free, independent, sovereign being. We must declare it to ourselves, and then to any who have ears to hear.

Fully wrapping one’s mind around this concept is not easy. We live in a world in which a small number of people with power insist that we are not free, independent, sovereign beings. That same world is populated by a large number of people who agree with them—serving as the useful idiots they need to maintain their power. It is easy to fall into their trap, or to despair of any other path.

In order to overcome these challenges and prepare to declare personal independence, we must recognize something deep and powerful:

We are always in a state of nature. Government is the construct.

To help with understanding this revelation,

After the video below, I will share an excerpt in I describe this idea in more detail. I hadn’t accepted the full meaning of this revelation when I wrote it, but the lightbulb had clearly gone off.

Before you read it, this two-minute clip is a fictional representation of how you should see this revelation in your mind. You are Neo, figuring out that the Matrix isn’t real. Or at least that it is not what it has portrayed itself to be.

Excerpt from The Freedom Scale: An Accurate Measure of Left and Right:

The State of Us

No matter where you go, there you are.

—Buckaroo Bonzai

Earlier in this chapter, I hinted at a radical notion—that we should think of the state of nature not only as a tool for philosophers, or the anarchic state of our distant ancestors, but as the baseline condition of existence itself. Let us now take that idea one step further and consider the notion that in our own lives, and relative to each other, we are always in a state of nature…whether we live under a government or not. 

That would seem, at first blush, to defeat the purpose of the state of nature as a construct. But maybe that’s okay. Government may be a likely outcome of human activity, but it is not, in the strictest sense, natural.

The world is natural. We are natural. Our four conditions of human community—solitary, chaotic, oppressive, and cooperative—will exist whether there is government or not. Government is an add-on to our natural lives. In a way, it is government that is the construct.

In other words, we don’t really “leave” the state of nature when we live under a government. We’re still people, and nature is still nature. We still have the same goals, dreams, and hopes. The same brains and bodies. The same moral incentives and disincentives. Government is not our reality.

Reality is our reality:

1. We are free to do what we want whether there are laws or not.

There was a phrase I remember hearing a lot when I was young: “You have to.”

I bet you heard it a lot too. Parents, siblings, teachers, even other children utter these words as if they have some sort of magical power. You HAVE TO do this, that, or the other thing. I still remember the moment when I realized, in a sudden flash, that I don’t have to do anything. These words refer to consequences that might be imposed if we take, or fail to take, a particular action. But they have no actual power over our free will.

Human beings are radically free. Government cannot stop you from making choices. Law is not a magic force-field that prevents you from acting. Government is a reactive force—it merely presents consequences.

Asked for examples where we can see the state of nature in operation, Enlightenment-era philosophers pointed to the leaders of existing nations. Since there were no international laws governing interactions between them, they were said to be in a state of nature relative to each other:

• It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were, there any men in such a state of Nature? To which it may suffice as an answer at present; that since all princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world, are in a state of Nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state.

Without an authority over them, they might make war or peace; they might trade or plunder. Based on the way in which philosophers were using the concept of the state of nature at the time, this answer made sense.

But it may not go far enough. Is the existence of law what really what matters? We have international laws today, and leaders violate them as if they weren’t there. The laws get factored into decisions, but they are never the only consideration. National interest, morality, practical consequences, and the personalities and circumstances of the moment are also important factors—probably far more important.

The same is true for individuals. A man and woman, alone in a room together, may choose to murder or make love. There is nothing to stop them from acting. Under a government, their actions may have legal consequences, but those consequences cannot prevent the actions themselves.

The man and woman are radically free. They think; they choose; they act. Many considerations may enter into their calculations—feelings and desires, values and beliefs, the future and the past. Sometimes, they’re barely thinking at all. At this moment, across the world, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women alone in rooms, and legal consequences are only one of many considerations.

Simply put—our interactions with our fellow humans are bigger than the law. Later in the same passage quoted above, John Locke touches on this very notion:

• The promises and bargains…between the two men in the desert island…or between a Swiss and an Indian in the woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as men, and not as members of society.

Locke’s point was a beautiful and necessary one: In the absence of law, we can still “keep faith” with one another. Even in a state of nature, there are plenty of incentives and considerations to properly guide our actions.

But why stop there? Those same considerations exist even when we live in a political society. Laws merely add one more item to the list. In other words…

2. Government is just one of a number of incentives.

The actions our man and woman take will produce consequences. But most of these would exist with or without a formal state. If one murders the other, the state may punish the guilty, or the victim’s family or clan may. If they make love and a baby results, the state may force the man to pay child support, or the clans may insist they marry. Whatever they do will have emotional and social ramifications. With the state or without the state, we are free to act, and there are consequences.

Think of some horrible crime—something you just would not do, no matter what the circumstances. It does not matter to you whether government exists or not—you just wouldn’t do it.

Well, right now, there is another person who wants to commit that crime, but stays his hand because he is afraid of getting caught and punished. And there is a third person who is committing that same crime, even with the knowledge that he may be caught and punished.

Many considerations go into people’s actions and choices: legal, social, spiritual, religious, moral, considerations of self-image, and more. Some people follow the basest of impulses; others, the highest of callings. Government is just one of many incentives.

3. Government does not make us

A few years back, we had a massive winter gale wreak destruction over a wide area, leaving many of my neighbors without power and heat for quite a few days. Most people were helpful and cooperative—reaching out to each other, setting up warming stations, and inviting people without power to stay with them. Our friends across town did tell us of some generator thefts on their road, but all in all, most people were well-behaved and supportive.

This story tends to repeat itself, especially in towns across America’s heartland. Similar behavior is observed in post-disaster scenarios in other nations. The Japanese, no strangers to natural cataclysms, have become known for their calm, orderly reactions and polite demeanor, despite massive upheaval and loss. Even in scenarios where law and order are temporarily absent, people can and do behave themselves.

But what if law and order are not just temporarily suspended, but disappear entirely? People may behave themselves when they know the power, and the police, will be back eventually. But how will their behavior change—how much worse might it get—once they realize the “blessings of society” aren’t coming back any time soon? In such a scenario, we would see one or more of our four conditions of human community play themselves out:

• In some places or times, there might be chaos. 

• In response to the chaos, “authorities” might arise who promise to restore order, but deliver oppression instead.

• A few people might try to get as far away from it all as possible, even if it means living in solitary conditions.

• And, as always, there would be people cooperating for mutual survival and safety, and others taking advantage of the vulnerable.

It may seem obvious, but it still must be amplified, that all of this depends on us. Our behavior determines how things unfold in the absence of government, and how order is restored.

Government is not made of buildings and office chairs; it is made of people. Laws may come and go, but the human beings who make the law, obey the law, and break the law remain. Governments did not create people; people create governments.

4. Natural law is forever

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

―Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress 

One of the great traditions of the ancient English, derived from Saxon tribal practice, was the notion that even leaders are not above the law. This principle was considered a folkright, and was applied (albeit imperfectly) until the Norman conquest imposed continental-style feudalism and overlordship.

In time, this ethos even subsumed the island’s Anglo-Norman rulers. It was based in the idea that there is a “law of the land”—a natural law to which we are all subject. Since no one can be above the natural law, no one—be they beggar or king, brigand or bishop—ought to be above any laws we create.

But the laws we create must themselves be harmonious with the natural law. I certainly would not consider myself “beneath” the laws of Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, or Kim’s North Korea…nor should any other human. If man’s laws fail to comport with natural law, then they ought to apply to no one. 

From a practical standpoint, our laws are also subject to the laws of nature. Laws that comport with natural realities will work better. Laws that run counter to the law of nature are far more likely to fail, and to produce failed, miserable societies. 

Natural law is bigger than us. If man’s law comports with the law of nature, it is worthy of respect. If it does not, then it is worthy of nothing but rejection. Natural law is the law of the state of nature. Man’s laws may come and go, but the state of nature is always there.

We Choose.

Whether government is or is not,
We choose who we’re going to be:
To protect and to build
Or exploit and destroy,
We choose.

Whether we choose to obey or resist,
We know that we still exist;
We are what we are: we are still we.
Our minds are still free,
And we choose what to be.

Various philosophers throughout history have suggested that man only finds meaning in a political society, and has no relevant existence outside of it. I can think of few notions more hateful to our very being.

Government is a thing that, for better or worse, seeks to interpose itself between you and your freedom, between you and other people, between you and your land. In some cases—between you and God. But government could vanish tomorrow, and you’d still be you, we’d still be us, God would still be God, and the land would still be there.

We must thus redefine the “state of nature.” It is not a thing that people discard and leave behind as they move on to a more sophisticated existence. The state of nature can refer to a condition in the absence of government, but it must also be more than that. The state of nature is existence itself, and government is just a thing within it. Thus, we will define the state of nature as

Man’s natural condition of existence, in the absence of or considered without regard to government.

This way of understanding the state of nature is helpful for a variety of reasons—perhaps most of all for its psychological, emotional, and spiritual benefits…

Two years ago, the so-called free nations of the West plunged their populations into a surreal, “emergency-authorized” neo-totalitarianism from which, as of this writing, we still have not escaped. And, of course, many other people in the world have never enjoyed a proper communion with their natural freedom. Such circumstances have an impact on our material well being, of course, but they also take a psychological toll. Surviving and thriving require that we, as Harry Browne said, find “freedom in an unfree world.”

Recognizing just how deep your natural freedom goes doesn’t get us all the way to where we need to be, but it’s a good place to start.

---

Over the last few thousand years, we have come to accept involuntary government as some sort of inevitable force of nature. It feels like it sits atop everything—the capstone in the pyramid of our reality.

It is time to shed that feeling. The so-called “state of nature” is not some abstract thing that we use to describe our condition in the absence of government. The state of nature IS our reality.

For the time being, this is primarily a psychological step. But it is an essential one.

Recognize who you are. See the universe in which we live. You are not “beneath” any government or “under” its laws.

Government is the Matrix. You are Neo.

---