AnarchoLife

Anarcholife has moved

2026-11-01T04:59:42.057-08:00

Since 2024 this blog has been hosted at www.anarcholife.com. It's a much more nuanced, politically neutral, but still hardcore libertarian website. Some of the posts from this blog were not carried over because they were filler, too aggressive or just downright unwise. I considered deleting this blog because my worldview has evolved so much over time, but I decided to leave it up so that people can see that evolution.

I made some mistakes here and I think that hiding from mistakes or trying to pretend they didn't happen is unbecoming of what I think a man should be.

Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the new website as much as I do.

- Brian

Should overpopulation be a concern?

2023-07-04T09:23:00.001-07:00

For the vast majority of human evolution, mankind lived in relatively small, nomadic tribes where economies were limited and capital was difficult to build and maintain, making survival difficult, and requiring the engagement of all members of the tribe in the division of labor according to their unique capacities. Two million years of human evolution have hard-wired this way of life into the genetic fabric of modern humans.

The advent of agriculture allowed humankind to settle in one place and produce enough food to free creative energies to develop and accumulate the capital needed to further improve his quality of life. As capital accumulated, difficult tasks became easier and less time consuming, allowing even greater dedication to other pursuits, like science, which further facilitated the accumulation of even more advanced capital, and so on.

Naturally, as capital accumulated in more permanent settlements, economies evolved and matured and life became easier. Urban centers are where life is the easiest, and survival is less dependent on physical and intellectual discipline. As the division of labor becomes highly evolved in urban areas, each individual becomes more estranged from the realities of survival and lower-level production and lacks the experience necessary to understand the processes by which his way of life has arisen. This separation from reality makes the individual more susceptible to misinterpretation of observation and therefore more likely to prescribe bad solutions to perceived problems (many of which may be wholly imagined), thereby creating more problems. This phenomenon may be further inflamed by the attraction pathological personalities may have to population centers, in order to prey on others, manipulating misconceptions for their benefit.

It seems that an accumulation of capital may be accompanied by an accumulation of both power and bad ideas. Power, through pathological personalities manipulating misconceptions for their benefit and bad ideas, through undisciplined thought and the lack of experience to correctly interpret reality. It seems possible that the very accumulation of capital that makes life easy may also facilitate, over time, social disruption. More and more people are, understandably attracted to the ease of life in urban centers and, therefore, fall victim to the problems described above, compounding the dysfunction of society.

If the above is correct, it is conceivable that the dysfunctional society of urban centers may use their wealth and power to overrun the stabilizing influence of rural areas, thereby inducing some level of wide-ranging social self-destruction. Population growth may become terminal due to a flaw in the evolutionary path of humanity, or continually bump up against a limit of advancement where natural social cohesion finds some level of equilibrium with, for lack of a better phrase, capital-induced social dysfunction.

"Never Give Up" is bad advice

2022-12-17T08:40:00.002-08:00

All human capabilities fall into categories that I call talents. I define talent as an innate capability. An innate capability is the ability to do certain things that is a part of what you are; something derived from your genetics that makes you able to perform functions, assuming that you aren't incapacitated otherwise by injury, sickness, etc. Skill is the level to which your talent has been developed. All talents exist on a curve, where very few people have very low levels of a given talent, very few have high levels, and most are somewhere in between. For example, Michael Jordan has a very high level of athletic talent. He has a great innate capability in athletics. But everyone has some level of innate capability in athletics. There may be no one who, all things equal, has no ability to do anything physical.

Certain talents are widely recognized, like athleticism, or musicality, but virtually every capability fits into some category of talent. Less recognized are talents like strategy, business or even discipline. All of these thing s are capabilities which some people have more or less of. Because these are innate, or defined by genetics, they can't be altered to great extent. For example, one may have, on a scale of one to ten, one being the lowest level of talent, 10 being the highest, a 4 in athletic talent. One may be able to increase their skill in that talent to perform at a level that others who have a 5.5 perform at naturally. However, one will never be able to perform at a level of 7, no matter how much effort goes into developing skill. FYI, these are arbitrary numbers, just to make a point.

If you want to do business, you have to have a talent level high enough to accomplish your goals. If you don't have that, no amount of effort will allow you to develop the skill necessary. The same is true for discipline. Accomplishing many goals depends on the level of discipline and if you don't have the talent necessary, you will not be able to accomplish your goals. The same is true for all talents. In order to achieve your goals, you must have the talent. Without it, you will fail. That's why the "Never Give Up" mantra is bad advice. You should absolutely give up on the goals for which you do not have the necessary talent. Instead, try to find out what your best talents are and develop skill in those areas.

People will ultimately find value in focusing on their talents. Because these capabilities are innate, people will find satisfaction in using them and dissatisfaction in attempting to use capabilities in which they are poorly endowed. If dissatisfaction with life in general is to be avoided, it's important for people to understand this idea.

The NAP and the use of violence

2022-06-26T11:16:00.002-07:00

The Non-Aggression Principle states that no one has the right to initiate force against the property of others and is the basis of objective morality as defined in MtH. In regards to the use of violence, it is usually assumed that violence is only morally acceptable in the defense of property in the presence of the initiation of force. For example, someone initiates force against your property by slapping you in the face, you have the right to defend yourself against further attacks. I argue that isn't the only case in which violence is morally acceptable.

Not all things are owned. If you find a previously unknown island, that island, because it was previously unknown, has no owner. In that case, you're free to do as you wish with the island without violating anyone's property. In fact, using your own property to physically claim the island makes it yours, should you wish it to be (maybe you don't want it, and, in that case, you can decline ownership). It may seem obvious that there is no moral problem doing whatever you want with something that belongs to you (assuming you aren't violating the property of others), or with objects that belong to no one.

Let's assume that there's a collective of people in an imaginary land who call themselves Tnemnrevog. The Tnemnrevogs have a system set up where they intimidate people into giving them money which they spend on various things, like cars for their agents, water mains, electrical transformers, buildings, weapons, etc. But none of the Tnemnrevogs claim ownership of any of these things. In fact, you go around and interview every Tnemnrevog in the land, but every single one denies that they own the things that they've bought. Some say that everyone owns them, including the people they've taken money from. But there's no record of that ownership, the people who are the supposed owners aren't allowed use the items, nor are they allowed to sell them or sell shares in them. In reality, the Tnemnrevogs control a lot of assets that they don't actually own.

Keeping that in mind, let's say that Bob hates carpenters and wants to stop them from building things. He's very frustrated that they continually build, and build, and build things. He's even thrown away his principles in order to justify physically harming the carpenters themselves in his efforts to stop their building. What Bob doesn't realize is that to stop carpenters from building things, he doesn't have to hurt anyone at all. He can leave the carpenters alone completely and still physically stop them from building, by destroying their tools. Bob can make it so difficult and expensive for the carpenters to build by continually destroying their tools, that building is no longer worth it or even impossible. After all, destroying things is much easier than creating them. Another advantage to that strategy is that he doesn't have to declare war on the carpenters. He can, whenever he has time, break a saw, or steal a hammer or put a hole in a carpenter's truck's engine block. Bob's carpenter-hating friends could do the same whenever they had some free time. Not hurting the carpenters themselves might mitigate the risk of public backlash, and, if Bob and friends use a little humor while tool-destroying, they may even gain public support.

Of course, Bob shouldn't violate the property of carpenters, since they have an entitlement to their property and destroying that property would be immoral. The two cases above are just unrelated points, one about philosophy and the other about strategy. To sum it up, you can do what you want with unowned things and destroying the tools used to do the things you don't want done can stop people from doing those things.

Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

Libertarians Like Libertarianism, Except When It's Inconvenient

2021-12-03T05:40:00.000-08:00

A popular libertarian podcaster, whose show I consistently listen to and enjoy, recently did an episode where he advocated that the police remove homeless people from a public park that he and his daughter were visiting. That started a debate on some censorship platform that I'm not familiar with, called "Twitter", I think. On the podcast episode in question, the host mildly criticized libertarians who opposed the common-sense practice of having police remove the homeless from public parks. As much as I want to just go along with what this guy says, I was a little shocked by it (mission accomplished, [Name Redacted]!), as being not only non-libertarian, but also naïve and impractical.

Therefore, Bulleted List:

The state isn't here to enforce your preferences. In fact, that's a lot of the reason we are where we are. People want the state to enforce their preferences on others by force and the state is all too happy to take the power that comes along with that and do whatever they want with it, your preferences be damned. You'll be lucky if that same power isn't used against you, instead.
If the state should have the power to kick homeless people out of the park, should they have the power to kick people out of the park who have no Maxine passport? Why or why not?
If the homeless people don't like you, should the cops kick you out? I mean, we're all human here, right? None of us have rights that others don't. So, if it's cool for some to have the state kick people out of parks who don't share their lifestyle choices, then we should support a situation where all groups are trying to use government force to exclude those they don't like.
If you argue that the state owns this property (the park), then it's up to them what to do with it, unless you also argue that it's not up to you what you do with your own property. Obviously, someone who supports the idea that some can't do with their property what they want, then they would also argue that they themselves can't do with their own property what they want, to be consistent. If you argue that the state can't legitimately own property, then what gives you more of a right to it than a homeless person?
This is why they propagandize. They do what benefits them at our expense and that creates problems, but they've taught us in their schools from an early age that the solution to those problems they created is more power for them. That creates more problems, etc.
Why would you bring your kid to a place like that? Maybe somehow you didn't know it would be that way? If that was the case, once you figured out that it was that way, why stay? Just don't take your kid to places like that. I wouldn't want my kid on Jeffrey Epstein's island and, for that reason, I wouldn't take her there.
I get that you don't want your kid around that stuff. But if you're arguing for the use of force just to get your way, then you're part of the problem.

There's no good solution to the problem. The state's got things all messed up. Go somewhere that isn't a homeless infested park. I realize that may not be ideal, but your ideal isn't going to be accomplished by the naïve advocacy for state violence on behalf of your preferences.

Now, carry on with your normally excellent podcast.

The "They Aren't Private Companies" Non-Argument

2021-07-22T00:28:00.004-07:00

Big Tech is loathesome, yes, but the argument (if you can call it that), that they aren't private because they do the government's bidding (I guess that's the argument) is absurd.

1) These company's shares are traded publicly on stock exchanges and are owned by millions of individual investors. That's literally the definition of "private".

2) Yes, they can have whatever policies they want, even if that includes things I don't like. In fact, virtually every company I do business with does things I don't like. But, being an educated libertarian, I realize that there are tradeoffs to everything and that, if I get value from my dealings with these companies sufficient to overcome my objections, I continue. If not, I don't. That's how markets work.

3) Every company does the government's bidding. They pay taxes, they follow regulations and laws. They often raise money for the state's causes (like schools) voluntarily! So, is every company not private?

4) If you're still using Big Tech, then you're getting more benefit from your interactions with them than can be overcome by your objections to their policies. So, as I've heard libertarians say, if this is the the biggest threat to liberty in the world right now, you have to deal with the fact that you value liberty less than you value the benefits you get from Big Tech.

If you really hate what they're doing, praxeology says that you'd have participated in the market and left them for greener pastures.

5) For the sake of argument, let's say that Big Tech really isn't private. Now what? I really hope that the answer isn't, "now we can get the government to force them to do what we want". If that's the argument, you really, really need to work on your naivete. The government loves Big Tech censorship, fully backs it up and, is possibly coercing them into doing it. If you still think the state is there to do good for the people, you're utterly hopeless. Those evil bastards are never going to do anything for you if it goes against their interests. I'm amazed that anyone can't see that.

6) If, in 5, above, the argument is for government action against these companies, you're advocating that force be used against private interests in order to enforce your own preferences. You aren't a libertarian.

7) I don't know, but I suspect that the basis for the "not private companies" argument is really about spoiled, whiny, 1st-worlders not wanting to wait for the market to work. They want what they want right now(!) and they should never have to endure any inconvenience, whatsoever, at any time.

Can't they just move to another platform? Sure! But that would require doing something! That might mean making sacrifices (oh no!). These people have high time preference and they don't want to wait for the market to do its thing.

End List

Look, I'm fine with people, even libertarians, continuing to use Big Tech. I don't criticize them for that, because I understand economics. They get value from it. That value exceeds the costs. That value is subjective and the amount to which someone values something is neither right nor wrong. What I do criticize is the lack of self-awareness, the lack of introspection and the willingness to throw principle out the window at the slightest hint of resistance. There is a clear solution: stop using Big Tech. Hell, just cut back a little, for god's sake. That's how markets work. If you're still using Big Tech, fine, but stop confusing libertarian philosophy in order to virtue signal about your preferences. You like the benefits of Big Tech more than you hate what they're doing. That's the bottom line. Just admit it. That doesn't make you a hypocrite. That doesn't mean you can't complain about their terrible policies. That doesn't mean you can't lobby them to change. Buy their stock and vote in the shareholder's meetings. But please stop twisting libertarian philosophy. Climbing that hill is hard enough already.

NAP violations are no big deal ;)

2021-01-17T14:12:00.007-08:00

To expound on an insight of Manual to Humanity, NAP violations (or property violations), though technically immoral, are usually no big deal. The vast majority of property violations are very minor, negligible infringements that mostly go unnoticed, or are immediately forgiven, like brushing someone's shoulder passing on a crowded street. Yes, I've touched that person's shoulder without their consent, that's a property violation, so, they have a claim against me. If I pat someone on the back in congratulations, yes, I've done something to their property without their consent, that's a violation, and they have a claim against me.

That's the philosophical principle.

The reality is that most people simply don't care enough to seek damages over tiny violations. Even if they did, the chances that an arbitrator or dispute resolution agent would award damages that would make the claim worth pursuing aren't good, or if the claimant sought the damages himself, would the risk be worth it. Not only that, but anyone who did pursue such claims, would open themselves up to similar claims, since virtually everyone commits violations like these all the time. It's really when damages rise to a level subjectively deemed "worth it" would they pursue them. Otherwise, they simply forgive them.

In fact, people who understand and advocate for the NAP, may consciously violate it assuming that they're going to be forgiven by the property owner. Now, they open themselves up to a claim, but if one borrows his friend's car without his permission, assuming that his friend wouldn't have a problem with it, he's violating his friend's property by using it without consent, but chances are that, even if his friend gets angry about it, he'll probably let it go with no further repercussion. This kind of thing happens all the time.

There were a few things about MtH's development that surprised me, and this is one of them. I'd thought of property violation only as a philosophical no-no and an uncivilized practical misdeed. Really, though, the NAP, though a moral and philosophical imperative, isn't as rigid in practical application. NAP violations are black and white, but the results of those violations aren't. We all should try to avoid violating the property of others and have that as a guiding principle, since civilization depends on it, but we're not going to be able to be 100% consistent with it. So, we should be as ready to forgive as we are to be forgiven of our trespasses against others and I think that we are ready and willing to do so because that's simply the nature of human relationships.

The Naivete Epidemic

2020-11-08T05:13:00.003-08:00

If you ask people if they believe that evil people exist, they'll say yes, but they only say that because they think that's the correct answer, not because they really believe it. They simply don't understand the nature of evil nor, especially, the nature of power.

There is an organization of people, called the US Federal Government, that extracts multiple trillions of dollars from citizens, openly, and through the naked threat of violence, every year. Everyone knows that if they don't submit, they will be forced to give more. Everyone knows that if they don't submit to giving more, they will be imprisoned. Everyone knows that if they don't submit to imprisonment, they will be killed.

Everyone knows that.

Despite that knowledge, they also think that this organization is willing to allow the people it forcibly extracts the money and power from to decide the who runs the organization. This is a multi-trillion dollar gravy train. The political class and their cronies who benefit from, not only the money, but the power over others, the power that in studies affects the human brain in a similar manner as cocaine addiction, would never even consider handing their fate over to the judgement of Joe Blow. This is a well locked-down system of exploitation that exists for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

The reality is that they, in order to keep the racket going, take great pains to ensure its security. First, they force everyone to be indoctrinated from the age of 6 to 18 by sending them to schools where they are conditioned to submit to arbitrary authority, conditioned to hate learning through punitively regimented, anti-human programs, where they discourage the thoughtful, logical reflection and critical thinking that leads to the uncovering of truth, ensuring they can't or won't educate themselves afterward. They teach, subtly, that governments are not only necessary, but beneficial to mankind, and even though that has been proven false theoretically, philosophically, scientifically and empirically, the public has been trained to accept it as fact, and, largely, rendered unable to understand the truth of it. It becomes understood that "goodness" equals submission to authority, conformity of thought and acceptance of indoctrination.

Second, they control the media. Governments are people, controlling large masses of other people, by threat of violence. Governments teach the controlled masses that this is necessary and good. They convince the controlled masses that that government acts in their interest. That ensures that the controlled masses will fight each other over control of the direction of government, even though that control is illusory. That widespread and constant conflict is, by far, the largest source of news. Governments, by controlling access to that news, control the media. Over time, they develop a relationship with that media and use them (themselves consisting of members of the indoctrinated, controlled masses) to continue the indoctrination of the masses beyond their schooling years.

Third, government privilege and protection of businesses aligns them with the agenda. Don't want to play politics with your business? Well, your competitors will, and that'll give them a big advantage over you, so you really don't have a choice. As the government grows its power, participation in the game gets more important and more of the successful company's resources are focused away from the markets and toward access to government privilege. It becomes George Carlin's "Big Club" - "and you ain't in it"!

At this point, governments can fine-tune the message: "laws" are not simply the opinions of politicians at the point of a gun; they're sacraments handed down from a holy authority. Regulation isn't the consolidation of industries for the benefit of the politically-connected business that fund political campaigns, it's a consumer protection measure. Police aren't simply enforcing the will of the political class, they're protecting the masses, and so-on.

The idea that you get a say in this system of control over you, is an amazing level of naivete and that level of naivete is absolutely epidemic.

The system is designed to keep the masses placated; to give them the illusion of control. The political class decides who they want in control, presents acceptable nominees to the public and, regardless of the outcome, they get what they want: the growth and security of their racket.

Some may point to times when "an outsider" has gained control. But what did the "outsider" actually do? Did he take more money than has ever been taken through the Federal Reserve's money machine? Did he preside over the largest consolidation of politically-connected industry in history, via economic lock-down? Was he able to turn the masses against each other in unprecedented conflict?

That is all part of the illusion. The end-game is complete control.

All of this evil rests on nothing more than ideas. All that needs to happen to bring it all tumbling down is for the naive, indoctrinated masses to open their eyes to what is right in front of them. The fact that they're unable to do so is what makes the system so insidious. Adults seeing the world as if they were children.

Evil people exist and they control everything.

LeBron James: "Basketball is easy!"

2020-05-15T18:31:00.000-07:00

All human characteristics exist on a curve. There are very few extremely short people, very few extremely tall people and more and more people as you get closer to the average. There are very few extremely ugly people, very few extremely beautiful people, and more and more people as you get closer to the average. Like this*:

Talents are the same, but skewed towards non-talent. Very few people are extremely good at basketball and a lot of people are bad at it. Something like this:
:

If you have talent at basketball, then basketball will seem much easier to you than to me (a man of little basketball talent). That all seems unremarkable, common-knowledge stuff. Why spend so much time making these crappy graphs just for that obvious point?

Why? Because it's not always obvious. If LeBron James thinks basketball's easy and that all you have to do is throw the ball through the hoop, he might get frustrated seeing people who seem to refuse to play basketball well, when, in fact, they aren't refusing to play it well, they're genuinely untalented. They are genuinely unable to play it well, no matter what. LeBron's problem is that he doesn't see himself as unique. He sees that others have arms, legs and a brain to control them, so why can't they do what he does? It's because he has talent and they don't.

Talent and non-talent are pervasive. They exist in almost every aspect of human endeavor; sports, academics, arts, business, whatever.

I've recently been exasperated by the intellectual failings of others. Not just most people, but 999 of 1000 are nitwits. They seem hopelessly unable to reason out even the simplest concepts or ideas. My frustration isn't because of the Nitwits; it's because I haven't recognized that I have a talent for logical thought and they don't. They're actually incapable of it to varying degrees. Because logic isn't a skill set for Nitwits, their minds work in completely different ways than my own, making it difficult to relate to them and frustrating to interact with them.

Understanding talent is the first step to tolerance. It's not fair for LeBron to hold me to his standard of basketball, nor is it fair for me to hold others to my standard of reasoning. People unable to reason communicate in emotion. They virtue signal. They say things that seem to have a logical basis, but are illogical. The reason is that they don't care that 2+2=5 is logically incorrect. What matters is what 2+2=5 implies.

People are terminally tribal. I mean that they will choose groups with which they identify, and develop a vicious loyalty to those groups no matter how arbitrary or silly the defining characteristics of those tribes are. In the 2+2=5 tribe, the fact that 2+2=5 is logically nonsensical is irrelevant. The tribe's members don't see it a logical statement. It's merely a slogan that they use to signal to the rest of the tribe that they are loyal members of the tribe and are, therefore, "good".

That's it. That's the human mind for the vast majority. Marvel at the tribalism revealed here - you will never see the world the same as you did before.

There's a major problem here. Being right or wrong is the difference between human flourishing and human suffering. It's up to the Logically Talented to figure out what's right and what's wrong. But how can we communicate a logical conclusion to those who don't grasp logic? How do you get the tribes to adopt what's right and signal to each other correct answers rather than simply emotionally satisfying ones?

It's like trying to explain mathematics through dance. It seems impossible, but the future of mankind depends on it. If we can figure that out, we can go a long way toward fixing the human world.

*The Y-axis says "percentage of people", and should say "number of people", but the thing was too hard to edit. you get the idea.

Abortion

2019-05-15T12:03:00.001-07:00

This post has been a long time coming. The abortion question is complex because it involves the inseparable intersection (potentially) of the property of two people, namely the mother and child. Throughout this article, I'll be referencing the principles of libertarianism as laid out in Libertarianism: The Manual to Humanity (LMH).

As pointed out in LMH, people have an entitlement to their property, the most basic unit of which is their body, or more technically, the self. This entitlement is the foundation of objective morality. The issue with pregnancy and, consequently, abortion, is that pregnancy can introduce a natural and unavoidable property conflict between a mother and her child. A mother has a right to her body and may consent or withhold consent to the use of her body by others. The same is true with anyone at any time, including an unborn human.

Part of the question is whether, in fact, an unborn human is a human at all. If it is, then it is entitled to its property. If it is not, property does not exist for that entity. It is true that a fetus (human, of course) is genetically human. If a fetus were subjected to genetic testing, the results would be indistinguishable from an adult human in terms of its species. One may argue that a cancerous tumor would also test as human. The difference between a tumor and a fetus is that a tumor, though containing human DNA, will never develop as a human being does, because it lacks the genetic material associated with what we recognize as a human being. A fetus will. So a fetus is a human being in the early stages of development which will continue until its death. A fetus is a human being.¹

If a woman has sex, the potential outcome of that act is the spontaneous creation of a human being. In the case of pregnancy, the creation of this person necessarily places the person on the property of another (the woman's body). This is consent to the use of that property by the created person. Because the created person is subject to the actions of the mother without the ability to negotiate terms (the created person doesn't exist before the execution of the actions, and, therefore cannot agree or disagree), the mother consents to the use of her property without terms. In other words, there is no limit on how the created person may use the mother's property.

Because there are no terms, the mother waives her right to evict the created person. Acting on the property of the created person without its consent, is immoral (reference objective morality in LMH). To illustrate, assume Bob has a hot air balloon. Bob gets in his balloon one day to go for a ride. While 5000 feet in the air, Bob remembers a magic trick he heard about that allows the user to conjure a person out of thin air. Bob does the trick and Tom appears in the balloon with Bob. By putting Tom in his balloon, Bob consents to Tom using his balloon. Because Tom could not agree to the terms beforehand, there are no terms and Tom may use the balloon as he chooses. Therefore, Bob may not push Tom out of the balloon, even if he changes his mind about Tom's presence.

Making unilateral, conditionless arrangements involving others that, if broken, result in the damage of the counterparty's property effectively binds the property of the two parties. In a common arrangement with terms and conditions, either party may break the agreement, if desired, along the lines of the terms, because, in that arrangement, property is not violated. However, in a unilateral, conditionless arrangement in which the property of others depends on the continuation of the arrangement, breaking such an arrangement is a violation of the property of the counterparty, unless the counterparty consents to ending the arrangement.

Under normal circumstances, creating a unilateral, conditionless arrangement involving the property of others is, itself, a violation of the property of others because they cannot consent in such a situation, pregnancy is the only known instance where it is not. Before a person exists, he has no property to violate. His property can only be violated after he comes into existence.

So far, this is clean and logical. But there is a situation in which abortion is not immoral and that is in the case of rape. In rape, the woman has not consented to the use of her property by the created person. She is within her right to her property to evict. Eviction may result in the death of the created person and, if so, the rapist is liable because he took actions that resulted in the damage of another's property (in fact, two people; the created person and the affected woman).

Again, all of this is based on the libertarian principles laid out in LMH, previously mentioned. Abortion is morally wrong, except in the case of rape.

¹ One may be tempted to argue that sperm or eggs may equally be recognized as human, but they do not fit the criteria above. They would not test as a genetic human being as they contain only half of human DNA and, they will not develop into a human. One may also argue that fire is alive, since it consumes, grows and reproduces, but as pointed out in the footnotes of LMH, inter-species rights do not exist even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that fire was a living thing.

Defense of Others

2019-05-03T09:34:00.000-07:00

Tom was attacked by Mean Mike. Bob saw the attack and rushed over to help Tom. Bob grabbed Mean Mike and pulled him off of Tom.

Mean Mike did not consent to Bob's imposition on Mean Mike's property. Mean Mike did not aggress against Bob. In the context of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), what has happened?

It's clear that Mean Mike has violated the NAP by violating Tom's property (his body). By violating Tom's property, Tom now has a claim to Mean Mike's property to compensate for the value Mean Mike has taken without consent.

Bob initiated force against Mean Mike in defense of Tom. What does that mean? It isn't as clear. But the principles laid out in Libertarianism: the Manual to Humanity (LMH) give a guide:

"By violating the entitlement to the property of others, an aggressor implicitly agrees that property need not be respected. By violating his victim's property, thereby transferring value from the victim to himself, he creates a claim on his own property by which the victim may attempt to recoup the value taken from him. Because the aggressor has agreed, through his aggression, that property need not be respected, the victim is within his entitlement to use his property in defense of his property, or to recoup his property, even if this defense requires the use of force against the property of the aggressor."

Mean Mike has violated Tom's property. Therefore, Mean Mike has openly demonstrated that he believes property (which necessarily includes his own) need not be respected. He has, in effect, consented to the use of his own property by others. This is Bob's out. Because of Mean Mike's consent, Bob may impose himself on Mike's property.

But only to an extent.

Mean Mike's property is now Tom's property to an as-yet unknown degree because Mike's violation of Tom's property has created a claim on Mike's property. Because value is subjective, we don't know the extent of Tom's claim. So if Bob takes too much liberty with Mike's property, he risks violating the NAP against Tom if he infringes on Tom's claim to Mike's property. From LMH,

"Value is subjective. The value of property depends on the preferences and values of the beholder. All humans use the means available to them to achieve their goals. These goals are unique to the individual. Therefore, resources will be valued differently by different people at different times, or may even be valued differently by the same person at different times. Because of the subjectivity of value, only the victim is able to determine the value taken from him by an aggressor."

Bob's defense of Tom, in itself, does not constitute a moral transgression, a violation of the NAP. It does, however, put Bob at risk of violating the NAP if he infringes on Mean Mike's property to the point that it damages Tom's claim to Mike's property. It may be that, even if Bob did violate the NAP that Tom would forgive him in gratitude for his help in subduing Mean Mike, but defending the property of others is permissible under libertarian philosophy.

Libertarianism: Manual to Humanity

2019-04-27T21:24:00.001-07:00

Libertarianism is the philosophy, the how and why, of human freedom. Libertarianism is based on a single principle, called the Non-Aggression Principle, or commonly, the NAP. The NAP states that no person has the right to aggress against the property of others. That seems pretty simple and uncontroversial at first glance, but it can get difficult.

Because the point is to fully understand what this principle means, there are terms that need to be defined. Specifically, the words "right," "aggress," and "property." All of the following concepts tie in to each other, so one has to take the information as it comes and, hopefully, by the end, it will be clear.

Rights

Rights is a word that gets tossed around a lot without any explanation of what it means. People can mean many different things when they use this word, but this is what it means to libertarians: a right is an entitlement to one's property. In the context of the NAP, we can say, "because no one is entitled to the property of others and everyone is entitled to their own property, no one may morally interfere with the entitlement others have to their property."1 The problem here, as you may have noticed, is that by defining rights in the context of the NAP, we're further away from understanding the NAP than it appears we were before. Now the questions are not only of defining the words "right," "aggress," and "property," but what is entitlement? How do libertarians define morality?

We need to take these step by step, so let's continue with the current mission of defining "right," "aggress," and "property."

Aggression

We've opened a can of worms by defining rights, which we'll return to later. Now, let's define "aggression" and open another can. In the context of libertarianism, aggression is the violation of the property of others. Ignore, for now, that we haven't defined property yet. For example, assume, for the sake of simplicity, that a person's body is considered their property. Two men are arguing. One of the men loses control and physically engages his opponent by striking him. This man has violated the property of his opponent because he has interfered in his opponent's entitlement to his property, namely, his body. Here is the modified version of the NAP again, now that we understand what aggression is; "because no one is entitled to the property of others and everyone is entitled to their own property, no one may morally interfere with the entitlement of others to their property." For the sake of clarity, reactionary force, or defensive force, is not considered aggression and we will address this concept later.

Now, after defining aggression, we have added even more questions than we had after defining rights, like, “what about threats or fraud." We'll have to come back to those questions after we define property.

Property

When libertarians refer to property, they are referencing those material objects to which no one else has an equal or greater claim, nor for which others can be assigned responsibility. For example, everyone has a “self” consisting of a body and mind. The self is non-transferable, meaning that one cannot give away or sell or in any other manner divest the self (in this way, not only does no one have an equal or higher claim, but no others have any claim at all). The self cannot be given, in any manner, to someone else. That's not to say that it should or shouldn't be transferred to others, but that transfer is impossible. The self was never in the possession of another and never can be in the possession of another. Therefore, no one has a higher claim to the self and its constituent parts than the person manifested by the self. Responsibility for the consequences of the actions of a person cannot be assigned to others precisely because the self cannot be controlled by others.2 If Tom does harm to Bob, Tom is responsible because he used his property, to which no one has an equal or higher claim to harm Bob. In fact, no one has any claim to Tom's self and, therefore, they can have no responsibility for his actions. There is no link between responsibility for Tom's actions and other people. This is the basis of property and the point at which philosophy and practicality meet.

If a person were to use their body to build a shelter, who would have an equal or greater claim to that shelter? Someone who did not build the shelter? If that shelter were built on a mountainside and it collapsed, rolled down the mountain and hurt someone below, who would be responsible for that person's injury? Someone who did not build the shelter? If those not involved in creating something have an equal or higher claim to it and can be assigned responsibility for it, then consider this: assume that others have an equal or higher claim to your body than you. If this is true, then you also have an equal or higher claim to the bodies of those who have an equal or higher claim to your body. Your property is their property and their property is your property, which effectively returns us to the original position, which is logically circular.

More clarification is warranted on this property definition. Property has been defined as material objects to which no one has an equal or higher claim. Equal? Bob and Tom pooled their resources and built a house. They agreed that they would both be 50% owners of the house. So the house is a material object to which someone has an equal or higher claim, right? No. Bob owns half of the house. Tom owns half of the house. No one has an equal or higher claim to Bob's half of the house, nor does anyone have an equal or higher claim to Tom's half of the house. That is how joint ownership fits into the property definition and clarifies the term "equal."

Now that rights, aggression, and property have been defined, the NAP can be evaluated clearly: no person has the right to aggress against the property of others. Now we can move forward to answer some of the questions brought about by defining the words above.

Entitlement

When defining rights, the term "entitlement" was used, but wasn't defined: "...a right is an entitlement to one's property." An entitlement is the extent to which one has a claim to a material good. A person has the full claim on his self, and, therefore, is fully entitled. In the example of Bob and Tom's house, each of them has some entitlement to the house. This term is the bridge between the inextricably linked ideas of "rights" and "property." Rights describe the entitlement of an owner to his property. An owner has the right to his property because of his entitlement. You own your property, you may employ it as you see fit and this inherent entitlement is described as a right.

Just Acquisition

How a person uses his property to create more property was explained, but what about those material objects that already exist, but have not become property? How does one acquire property from existing material objects?

Bob is flying his drone. He sees a dollar on the ground with his drone’s camera. He thinks, “Ooh, there's a dollar! I'm going to go get it!", but before Bob arrives, Tom, who is standing right beside the dollar, and who is unaware of Bob's actions and plans, notices the dollar and picks it up. Who is the rightful owner of the dollar?

Think back to the example of the shelter on the mountainside. That shelter was the property of the owner because he employed his current property in the creation of that shelter. That gave him the highest claim to that material object (and the responsibility for it, though that isn't as significant with a dollar laying on the ground). In the case of the dollar, even though Bob has employed his drone to find it and then used his body to run over to it in order to pick it up, he hasn't used his property in the actual acquisition of the dollar. Tom, on the other hand, took similar action to Bob, using his eyes to find the dollar then using his body to bend down and reach for it. The difference between Bob and Tom is that Tom actually employed his property in the acquisition of the dollar by grasping it and lifting it. Bob did not.

This idea is similar to other ideas on property acquisition like “mixing labor”. The subtle refinement here is that it isn't labor, per se, but the employment of property that justifies acquisition. It may go without saying that existing property may be acquired through trade between owners, simply because one may transfer his property to others if he sees fit. That is his right.3

Objective Morality

Another crucial, yet undefined term in the rights definition was morality. Simply, morality is the principles involved in determining right from wrong. Controversially, there are two categories of morality: subjective and objective. Subjective, in this context, means not universally applicable, or subject to opinion. Maybe a more accurate definition is "based on individual values or preferences." To illustrate, a subjective statement might be, "chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream." That's an opinion based on one's preferences. Others may prefer different flavors. If one states that chocolate is best and another states that vanilla is best, they are both right, because their preferences only apply to themselves. One's preferences are a consequence of one's unique, inherent qualities. We are all genetically human, but those genes are expressed uniquely. Preference flows from this uniqueness as well as the available resources to achieve goals.

Objective is, obviously, the opposite of subjective. Objective means applying universally, or not subject to opinion. More accurately, "not based on individual values or preferences." An example of objectivity might be, "2+2=4." The statement "2+2=4" is mathematically provable and not subject to one's preferences or values. It is true unto itself, universally, for all people at all times. Many subjective moralities exist, maybe as many as humans exist, but one objective morality also exists.

Property is a constant among human beings. All humans own property: their selves. Of course, this isn't the only property people own, but it is the only property that everyone owns.

As explained previously, all owners are entitled to their property and, by the nature of property, no others have an entitlement to one's property. Therefore, only an owner (he who is entitled to property) may make decisions about the use of his property. Making decisions about property use is not an issue until other people are involved. When people interact, property, being a constant among all humans, is subject to those interactions.

Morality comes into play because interaction with the property of others can result in the violation of an owner's entitlement. For example, your bike is your property. If Tom takes your bike, you no longer have agency over the decisions on how to use your bike. The key to objective morality is consent. Consent is the agreement between two or more people to allow decisions about one's property to be made by others. In the example above, if Tom took your bike with your consent, you have made the decision concerning the use of your property, to be delegated to Tom. It can be said that Tom has not violated your property. If Tom took your bike without your consent, then he has violated your entitlement by removing your agency to make decisions concerning the use of your property. It can be said that Tom has violated your property.

Humans are incapable of consenting to have their property violated. The violation of property, is, by definition, non-consensual. Consent represents the agreement between (at least) two parties, one requesting access to the property of the other and that access being granted without the use of aggression. Genuine consent must occur without aggression. Aggression violates property entitlement by removing agency from the owner. This is the definition of non-consent. The absence of consent is non-consent. If property is controlled by someone other than its owner without the owner's consent, the owner's agency has been removed and the property has been violated.

All humans, in all interactions, either consent or do not consent. Universally, all humans oppose the use of their property by others without consent. Consciously agreeing to use of one's property by others is consent. Conscious non-opposition to the use of one's property by others is also consent.4 Morality germinates from this distinction between right and wrong and this morality is objective precisely because it is and must be universal. It is not possible for one to neither consent nor not consent to the use of one's property by others.

Assume Tom is in a coma. Bob asks Tom if he may use his bike. In his physical state, Tom is unaware of the request and is unable to consent. His lack of consent is, by definition, non-consent. Assume now, that Tom is able to hear Bob's request, but, in his physical state, Tom is unable to respond, even though, in his mind, he gives consent. If Bob goes ahead and uses Tom's bike, even though Bob isn't aware of Tom's consent, Bob has not violated Tom's property.

Assume Bob has a bike which he no longer uses. Bob has no interest whatsoever in the bike. Tom asks for consent to use the bike. Bob genuinely doesn't care if he uses it. He answers, "I don't care." This is consent. He does not oppose Tom's use of his property, delegating his decision-making agency to Tom.

Assume a man who ardently rejects the notion of property, Tom, is sitting in the park. If Bob punches him in the face, Tom will either consent or not consent to being punched. Tom must, as a condition of being human, consent or not consent. Consenting or not consenting is an involuntary reaction among humans. Even if Tom doesn't act, he still must consent or refuse consent, even if only in his mind. If, even as an emotional reaction, he objects to being punched, then he is refusing consent. If he has a negative emotional response, but is more dedicated to his beliefs than he is opposed to the punch, then he consents. If he agrees to be punched, even on an emotional level, he consents. If he does not agree to be punched, even on an emotional level, he refuses consent. If he doesn't want to be punched, but does want to demonstrate his anti-property philosophy more than he objects to the punch, he consents.

Similar to the example of Bob who does not care about his bike, Tom also cannot remain neutral. Even if he truly does not care if he is punched or not, he is giving consent for Bob to make Bob's own decision concerning Tom's property (Tom's face). Despite Tom's anti-property philosophy, Tom's consent or lack of consent reflects Tom's innate acceptance and understanding of property. Since property is an innate feature of humanity, it is impossible for him to avoid consent or non-consent.

This is objective morality embodied in the philosophy of libertarianism.

For contrast, let's return to the idea of subjective morality. Morality becomes an issue when there is a question of right and wrong. Bob may feel, based on his values, that it is bad to be wealthy and not give to the poor. This is a perfectly legitimate moral stance (it doesn't violate objective morality) and Bob is entitled to apply this to his life and/or try to convince others to adopt his morality. But this morality is subjective; it is based on Bob's personal values or preferences. A wealthy person does not violate the property of a poor person by declining to give to the poor person, therefore, it is not objectively immoral.

Almost every person has their own, subjective moral code; things one thinks are right or wrong according to their own values. As long as one avoids objectively immoral actions, one may legitimately act according to his own subjective moral code.

Now that morality has been explored let's return to the questions raised by previously defining aggression.

Fraud

Aggression can be two things: the initiation of (physical) force, or fraud. In the initiation of force, an aggressor employs physical force against the property of others without consent, violating their entitlement. In fraud, an agreement is made to exchange property (or the value from the use of property), with one party not fulfilling his end of the agreement. In this arrangement, one party consents to the use of his property (conditionally) in exchange for compensation. He does not consent to the use of his property without compensation, therefore, if compensation is not made, his property has been used without his consent, which is a violation of his entitlement.

Compensation

By violating the entitlement to the property of others, an aggressor implicitly agrees that property need not be respected. By violating his victim's property, thereby transferring value from the victim to himself, he creates a claim on his own property by which the victim may attempt to recoup the value taken from him. Because the aggressor has agreed, through his aggression, that property need not be respected, the victim is within his entitlement to use his property in defense of his property, or to recoup his property, even if this defense requires the use of force against the property of the aggressor.

The transfer of control of a victim's property to an aggressor doesn't transfer ownership to the aggressor. The original owner had, at the time the aggression occurred, the highest claim to the property in question and because he did not consent to his property being transferred, a moral infraction has taken place. The victim retains ownership of the property, therefore, and may do with his property what he wishes, which may include retrieving it from the aggressor.

The aggressor has created a claim on his own property by non-consensually appropriating the property of his victim and has demonstrated that he does not accept that property should be respected, which includes his own property.5 In this respect he gives consent to the use of his property. Therefore, there is no moral problem in using force to recoup the property of the victim.

What, exactly, is the victim entitled to?

Value is subjective. The value of property depends on the preferences and values of the beholder. All humans use the means available to them to achieve their goals. These goals are unique to the individual. Therefore, resources will be valued differently by different people at different times, or may even be valued differently by the same person at different times. Because of the subjectivity of value, only the victim is able to determine the value taken from him by an aggressor.

Threats

The next section is controversial. I think it's best to pause to explain the importance of maintaining the independence of philosophy from practicality. Often, attempting to follow pure logic in philosophy can result in what appears to be unreasonable or untenable applications in the real world. In a philosophical exercise like this one, we are attempting to uncover logical truths, or the principles dictated by logic. These logical exercises are not subject to the constraints of any current reality. The goal is to reveal logical truth to provide guidelines for life in the real world.

Above, I explained that only a victim can determine the value taken from him by an aggressor, due to the subjectivity of value. Logic dictates that the victim could determine that the value taken from him by the aggressor is massive in comparison to the aggression. Maybe a starving Tom steals an apple from Bob's apple tree. Bob claims that the tree is sacred to his religion and must never be touched by another and Tom's transgression has not only resulted in the loss of an apple, but in a severe religious sacrilege and the psychological insecurity arising from the notion that Bob's tree is not as safe as Bob thought. Bob claims that Tom, who owns nothing, and is, in fact, starving, should compensate Bob with 1000 ounces of gold, a security canopy built over Bob's apple tree and 100 apples. As unreasonable as it seems, Bob’s claim is, philosophically, legitimate, as only he can determine the value taken from him by Tom. However, the practical reality is that he will never be able to get what he wants from Tom. A compromise will have to be negotiated.

Just because philosophy allows for a certain result does not mean that result will manifest in reality. 5

Keeping this in mind, the next section will focus on threats and why they do not constitute aggression.

We've learned about what aggression is, and nothing more is necessary, but I think it's a good idea to address a ubiquitous misconception that, improperly understood, undermines libertarian philosophy.

Threats do not constitute aggression. That sentence tends to activate emotional bias. Generally the audience bursts into practical objections forgetting that the topic is not practical, but philosophical, and that philosophy should remain independent of practicality.

No matter how ardently one threatens another, property is not violated. Even if someone has a gun to your head swearing that if you move, they'll shoot, that, in itself, doesn't stop you from doing anything. You can still go about utilizing your property as you would otherwise. The fact that threats don't violate property is the most important point, but there’s more worth looking into.

Threats are subjective. If a man has a gun pointed at you, threatening to shoot, and he's 1000 miles away, is that a threat? What if he's 10 miles away? What if he's 1 mile away? 500 feet? 50 feet? 1 inch?

At some point along the above progression, most people went from “not a threat” to “definitely a threat.” But it should be clear that those judgements are not based on logic, but on the values of the observers. You can't have a philosophical principle that's completely subjective, especially when it comes to the violation of property, which is what most people advocate in response to threats.

If a threat is perceived, and it's up to he who perceives the threat to decide to act upon the property of the threat maker, then the violation of property is justifiable under virtually any circumstance imaginable. He who perceives the threat doesn't actually know the intentions of the perceived threatener. Until property is actually violated by the threatener, his intentions cannot be known. Because intentions cannot be known, all people can, at all times, legitimately be considered threateners. It could be that the man standing quietly on the sidewalk is more of an actual threat than the man pointing a gun at you. Additionally, a threatener may himself be unaware that he is a threatener. How? Because accidents happen. All people, at virtually all times, represent some level of threat to someone without having actually violated anyone's property. Therefore, it is morally wrong to act upon a threatener’s property without consent.

In order to avoid rejection of this idea due to emotional bias, I will take a tangent into practicality for a moment. Remember how Bob was unable to get what he wanted from Tom after Tom stole Bob's apple, due to the impracticality of his request? A similar idea can be applied here. Assume Tom points a gun at Bob and swears he's going to shoot because he's upset about what Bob's trying to get from Tom for stealing his apple (a good reason to avoid seeking unreasonable compensation). Really, Tom's just frustrated and upset and lashing out. But he's really a good guy who's having a hard time. Bob doesn't know that. For all Bob knows, he's about to be dispatched by a crazy person. So Bob initiates force against Tom in self defense. Bob is successful and Tom's threat is neutralized. Bob, of course, is the aggressor in the situation because he initiated force against Tom's property. So Tom has a rightful claim against Bob for his violation. Tom goes to Judge Jim to decide the case. Judge Jim, being familiar with the correct philosophical understanding, decides that Tom is right and Bob has violated his property. Tom wants Bob to compensate him with 1000 ounces of gold and 100 apples from Bob's tree. Judge Jim has something to think about: his career as a judge is based on his understanding of philosophy, his fairness in his judgements and how the market, the final arbiter, perceives him as a judge. He doesn't want to be seen as unfair or his career could be endangered. He realizes that Tom's threat was reckless and immature. He realizes that almost everyone, including himself, would have reacted as Bob did. So, in accordance with correct philosophy, Judge Jim rules in favor of Tom, but refuses to award him the compensation he seeks. This way, Judge Jim rules fairly and protects his reputation in the eyes of his market. This is a hypothetical example of reality limiting the extremes of philosophy.

Just because philosophy allows for a certain result does not mean that result will manifest in reality.5

Force in Defense

Though the NAP has been explained, I'd like to go a little further into some unnecessary territory to expand on the ideas of aggression, particularly the use of force in defense.

Earlier, the justification for the use of force to recoup property was explained. The same is true in defense of property. The only difference is time. To recoup property, the transgression has already occurred. To defend property, the transgression is currently happening. Once a threat is realized and becomes aggression, a victim may morally employ force to defend his property. The amount of force he is justified in using is unlimited. Practicality will impose limits and incentives to avoid the use of excessive force, but philosophically, unlimited force is legitimate.

To claim that the legitimate use of force in defense is limited requires the application of subjectivity. If Bob catches Tom stealing his apple, no matter how much or how little force Bob uses to stop Tom will be considered by different people to be too much. How much force is necessary depends on the values of the observer.7

Suppose Bob sees Tom violating his property and shoots and kills Tom in order to defend it. Most people would agree that Bob's use of lethal force to defend his property against a minimal violation is unreasonable. Economist and philosopher, Murray Rothbard, addressed this question with the concept of "proportional force." Rothbard's idea was that one has the right to defend his property with whatever amount of force is necessary to repel a violator, but no more.A In other words, he may use "proportional force;" force in defense proportional to the force used by the aggressor. Proportional force may be a fine practical guideline, but because proportional force is subjective, it can't be used as a moral principle.

Similarly, Bob may use any force he chooses to recoup his apple if Tom gets away with stealing it, though there is a subtle but interesting difference. Tom has effectively told Bob that he doesn't respect property, which, logically, must include his own, thereby he gives consent to the use of his property without conditions. Conditionless consent frees Bob from moral constraint. The interesting part is that if Bob needs to use force to overcome Tom's defense of his ill-gotten gains, Tom puts himself in a logical circle; if he wants his (and, therefore, other's) property to be respected, then he should cease his defense and return Bob's apple. If he does not want property to be respected (which includes his own), as he has demonstrated by stealing Bob's apple, then he should also cease his defense of his property, since he approves of property violation and Bob is violating his property! Of course, I'm using the term "violating" loosely here; Bob has a legitimate claim to what Tom possesses, so it's not really a violation of Tom's property.

What about the use of force in defense of others?

Tom was attacked by Mean Mike. Bob saw the attack and rushed over to help Tom. Bob grabbed Mean Mike and pulled him off of Tom.

Mean Mike did not consent to Bob's imposition on Mean Mike's property. Mean Mike did not aggress against Bob. In the context of the NAP, what has happened?

Bob initiated force against Mean Mike in defense of Tom. What does that mean?

But only to an extent.

Mean Mike's property is now Tom's property to an as-yet unknown degree because Mike's violation of Tom's property has created a claim on Mike's property. Because value is subjective, we don't know the extent of Tom's claim. So if Bob takes too much liberty with Mike's property, he risks violating the NAP against Tom if he infringes on Tom's claim to Mike's property.

Accidents

Aggressors don't always aggress intentionally. Probably far more often than not, when property is violated, it is violated by accident.

Regardless of an aggressor's intent (which, by the way, is unknowable), aggression transfers value, non-consensually, away from a victim. In the event of an accident, value is typically transferred away from the victim, but is not captured by the aggressor. In most accidents, the value is simply lost.

Still, the victim is owed compensation by the aggressor and all of the principles above apply.

Bob is driving his battle tank through the Ancapistani countryside, his steering malfunctions, he loses control, drives off the road and damages Tom's mailbox.

The principle is that Tom has a claim on Bob's property now that Bob has destroyed the value of Tom's property. Regardless of intent (intent is unknowable and should never factor in to the discussion) one person violated another's property. The extent of that claim is a practical matter. A matter that will have to be decided somehow taking into account the subjective valuation of the property damaged (if Bob had no property, Tom would have a claim on Bob's future property).

The victim has a claim on the property of the violator. Once restitution is made, however, the claim is no longer valid.

The point of all of this has been to fully understand the philosophy behind the principle of libertarianism, the NAP, to a level previously unattained. The reason this understanding is so important is because libertarianism is the only objectively correct social philosophy. The extent to which libertarianism is not understood and adopted is the extent to which society will suffer. People can't be expected to adopt philosophies that they don't understand. Though this essay is dry and most people won't understand it anyway, my hope is that intellectual libertarians will be able to adapt the concepts here to be more everyman-friendly.

The concepts explained here will be controversial, even among libertarians. So, at the very least, if they are mistaken, hopefully, they will spark enough quality thought to reach better conclusions. Obviously, this exercise was undertaken because the fine details of libertarianism aren't sorted out to the level that they can be and should be.

The philosophy above is meant to put libertarianism out of reach of other philosophies, and, in fact, they are intended to make libertarianism philosophically bullet-proof. It was already bullet-proof from a utilitarian, consequentialist, or practical standpoint, and, whether through this essay or some other, philosophy should reflect reality, and hard philosophical libertarianism can and should be indomitable.

1 Rights do not apply to animals. A consistent standard of property can not be established between species, all species being fundamentally different, therefore a standard of rights cannot be established (even if effective communication were possible). For example, bees and ants have no apparent concept of property, while dogs and squirrels do. Regardless, the relationship in regards to the extent to which property exists for dogs and squirrels compared to humans cannot be determined. Therefore, fundamental, interspecies rights cannot exist.

2 One may argue that with the proper application of force, one may be able to control others, but even under force, the victim is the one actually taking action, controlling his body with his mind. “But I can hold someone down and that is controlling them.” The self consists of the mind and the body. Controlling the body does not control the mind. Controlling the mind of another is not possible. One may be able to persuade another with great effectiveness, but one can never actually replace the self of another.

3 Assuming the transfer is consensual.

4 Assuming the owner is aware of a request. If he is not aware, he is not afforded the opportunity to choose, which is, by definition, the removal of agency and a violation of entitlement if action is subsequently taken with the owner's property.

5 Property, being universal among humans, is an all-or-nothing concept, meaning that if one does not respect the property of another, he rejects the idea of the respect of property altogether. He cannot logically respect his own property while simultaneously disrespecting the property of others. Obviously, people can hold conflicting beliefs, but they are not logically valid.

6 In understanding virtually anything, it helps to have at least a basic knowledge of related disciplines. In this case, knowledge of the function and incentives of markets and how they operate in the real world makes philosophy more relatable in practical terms.

7 In a practical sense, it's impossible to determine how much force is being used in offense or defense. There are no measurable Force Units (FUs?), but even if there were, they would not be calculable in the heat of a situation.

A https://mises.org/library/rothbard-self-defense-and-war

poking holes in the NAP?

2019-03-30T12:36:00.000-07:00

On a discussion of pro-vaccine vs anti-vaccine, a commenter said, "hey, the NAP is whatever people want it to be. why can't i consider someone breathing in my direction to be an attempt to harm me? they could be sick. and if they're unvaccinated, they could be sick with a mutated strain of something, or some disease that was considered extinct. that's a legitimate and serious threat to my safety. may as well be waving a gun around".

Because I'm emotionally connected to the NAP, my instinct was to dismiss the claim as bullshit and move on. But that's not how you act of you're truly interested in uncovering truth. So, I considered it. Honestly.

1) the commenter (he) knows that people breathe. If he chooses to be around people, then he is consenting to being subjected to their breath. If he is around people involuntarily, then the NAP has been violated by whomever is forcing him to be around others, but not by the breathers, who couldn't avoid breathing even if they tried.

2) he is also breathing. Even he, the vaccinated guy, could very well carry a disease. There aren't vaccinations for all diseases, so he is guilty of carrying the risk that he claims others carry.

3) as has been shown on this blog, threats do not constitute a NAP violation, so the mere threat of contagion is not rightfully subject to defensive force.

End thought experiment.

P.S. As for the vaccine question, I'm neither for, nor against. I'm not a scientist, so I can't perform my own experiments or validate that experiments done by others are not biased. I certainly don't trust the government or their pharmaceutical companies. In theory, vaccines are great, but in the current reality, they're dangerous due to the lack of available concrete knowledge in a heavily politicized, agenda-driven environment. Also, the comment featured here includes a logical problem, where he argues that a mutated strain of a disease may threaten his health. That is the case regardless of whether or not anyone is vaccinated.

philosophical rubber meets practical road

2019-03-09T11:30:00.000-08:00

One thing social media is good for is bringing up questions that need to be answered.

In a recent article someone was being jailed for refusing to testify against another party. Someone asked, "Under what circumstances, if any, is it morally permissible to compel testimony?". My answer was, "You may be morally justified in a case where information is required as compensation for property violation".

That brings up the question of what you are entitled to when someone violates your property. In the previous post, I brought up the example of someone having a tire blowout on the road, swerving to control the car and accidentally running off the road and damaging your mailbox. All things equal, that person owes you recompense, even though it was an accident. The fact is that they violated your property and now you have a claim on their property. Because value is subjective, you have the right to seek whatever you want from them as compensation, and they are morally obligated to make compensation.

People will try to say that that's unreasonable, and I wouldn't disagree. But that sentiment is an attempt to philosophize practicalities, which really can't be done, logically. Yet, there are practical limits on unlimited philosophies. Technically, are you entitled to require literally anything as compensation for the mailbox incident? Yes. But, if you actually require something "ridiculous", you'll run into problems.

First, your reputation will suffer. "That's the guy who took everything from Bob, after he accidentally damaged his mailbox!" That will come with social consequences. It could, even, endanger your property further. If you took everything Bob had for such a minor and accidental violation, which virtually everyone would agree was unreasonable, Bob might decide to retaliate. If he did, who's side would most people take? How harshly would a judge rule against Bob in your subsequent claim?

Secondly, in a civilized society, you'd (because of social risks outlined above) have to receive a judgement from a credible judge who would be unlikely to rule that Bob give you everything he has, lest he hurt his own reputation in the market, since virtually everyone would see it as an unjust ruling.

Thirdly, you would set yourself up for being destroyed by anyone who might one day have a claim against you, since the chances are high that, at some point, you will violate someone's property, even if by accident. If they knew what you'd required from Bob, you'd be more likely to have a similar compensation required of you, even if simply out of spite.

Last, you would make yourself a more desirable target for those who might seek unreasonable compensation now that you've become wealthier after taking Bob's stuff.

There is no solid limiting principle involved in determining what is owed to whom after a property violation. That's unsettling to folks (even me), but that doesn't mean that there are no practical limitations and this is an important part of understanding; we live in the real world; a world bound by practicality, and the practical application of philosophy is bound by that world.

Do rights violators give up their rights?

2019-02-16T10:43:00.000-08:00

You may be familiar with the Anarchyball page on facebook. One recent post was one sentence, stating, "those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights". I think I've actually posted somewhere on this blog in favor of that idea, but I think now, that's mistaken.

There are a couple of obvious problems. 1) people often violate the property of others by accident. 2) people often violate the property of others by mistake. It doesn't make logical sense that if a person violates someone's property by accident or mistake, that they no longer have claim to their property. For example, if someone is driving and a tire blows out, they drive off the road and damage someone's mailbox, does that mean all of their property is up for grabs to whomever wants it?

The principle is that the mailbox owner has a claim on violator's property. Regardless of intent (intent is unknowable and should never factor in to the discussion) one person violated another's property. The extent of that claim is a practical matter. A matter that will have to be decided somehow taking into account the subjective valuation of the property damaged.

But what about someone who maliciously violates another's property? The same is true. The property owner has a claim on the property of the violator (if the violator has no property, they have a claim on future property*). Since intent can never be known with certainty (even if specifically stated by the violator), it shouldn't factor in to the principle. It could factor in to the practical matter of deciding the extent of restitution, but that's another question.

The victim has a claim on the property of the violator. Once restitution is made, however, the claim is no longer valid. So, it is possible that, in the example above, the restitution could be made by others with their own property, removing the claim on the violator, with the violator actually restituting nothing.

The violator does not give up his rights if he violates the rights of others. He only creates a claim on his own property and that claim is resolved after restitution is made. The extent of that claim is a practical matter due to the subjectivity of the value to the victim of the property damaged.

*all people own property, if only in their bodies. So, physical "punishment" is a legitimate form of restitution, though, since restitution is a practical matter, I imagine there would be norms against it to some degree.

Why term limits are a bad idea

2019-01-28T12:27:00.000-08:00

A common "solution" offered to limit the civil destruction brought by governments is "term limits", or limiting the amount of time that politicians should be allowed to hold office. The idea is that "career politicians" can spend 30 years or more doing bad stuff, but if their time were limited to something less than that, they would have less time to do bad things.

The good is that people realize that politicians are bad and that they do bad things. But the reality of the situation is isn't intuitive. Have you ever seen a "cash grab booth", where a contestant is put into a small, clear, glass booth and money is quickly circulated through the booth on a strong air current and the contestant only has a small amount of time to grab as much cash out of the air as he can? That's term limits.

If a politician knows he only has a small amount of time in office, his incentive is to grab as much as he can before that term ends. When he leaves office, the office won't be vacant, it will be occupied by another politician, and that person will have the same incentive to smash and grab as the guy before him.

Conversely, if he knows that he's going to have a long tenure (and politicians are aware of the 90+% chance that they will be re-elected) the incentive to grab quickly is lower and the incentive to cultivate a longer-term view is greater.

So if you take the 30-year span of a single politician's time in office and compare it to the 30-year span of multiple politician's terms in office, one should be clearly worse than the other; 30 years of smash-and-grab-as-fast-as-you-can compared to 30 years of normal corruption.

Obviously, anyone who really cares knows that governments shouldn't exist, but as long as they're here we might as well not advocate for them to be a worse drain on civilization than they otherwise would be by advocating harmful ideas like term limits.

There's no right to defend your property against threats

2019-01-19T10:35:00.000-08:00

Clearly, a person who violates your property owes you compensation and if someone is violating your property, you have the right to defend it. That's the easy part of the defining principle of libertarianism, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

The hard part about the NAP is defining what the initiation of force means. The NAP states that no one has the right to initiate force against the property of others. But what is included in "initiation of force"? Many say that fraud, threats of force and the actual first use of force apply. But I don't agree. Fraud, yes, because two parties agree to a transaction and one party refuses to fulfill his obligation after his counterpart fulfills his. That's the same as theft. One party gives and the other does not compensate. Equally, the actual first use of force applies, for obvious reasons. Property is actually violated, thus compensation is required.

Threats of force, on the other hand, are different. A threat is hard to define. If someone pulls out a gun, points it at your head and says they're going to kill you, that's a threat. If a guy on the other side of the world tells you on the internet that he's going to fly to your country, go to your house and slap you, that's also a threat. So do you have the right to use force to defend yourself in both of those situations? If you do, why? No one in either scenario has violated your property. If you use force to defend yourself, who violated whose property first? One problem is intent. You don't know what the guy with the gun is actually planning to do. Maybe he's not actually planning to kill you or even hurt you at all. You can't prove what his intent is, so you would be the force initiator if you took action against him and you would owe him for actually violating his property. Another problem is the fact that what constitutes a threat is different for everyone. The definition of "threat" is subjective.

Every time you drive on the road where other people are also driving, the threat of injury or death is present. Does that mean you have the right to use force to defend yourself against that threat? There may be some who say yes. Most would say no. But who's right? How could either side prove that they're right? That would be impossible, and that's the problem with subjectivity. It could be proven that you used force against the threatener, but it couldn't be proven that they used force against you.

For most, this is an unsatisfying conclusion, at best. For me, too. The practicality of it, though, isn't as bad. Now, let's say that you successfully defended yourself against the gun wielder in the above example. You violated his property and you are at fault. He takes you to court to seek compensation. It's a pretty clean-cut case and the judge rules against you. The plaintiff had asked for $5000 in damages. The judge, though, being a reasonable person, and being aware of how it will look if he grants this $5000 judgement, only awards the plaintiff $1. You may be able to get away with refusing to pay the compensation since the final arbiter, the public itself, will probably be sympathetic to your case and ignore your refusal, whereas, otherwise, you may face some level of ostracisation (which is a whole other topic).

I had hoped that there would be a clever, logical way to frame this so that the right to defend against threats would be revealed, but that search has been fruitless. If property has not been violated, no actionable force may be employed in a legal sense. There is, however, a point at which philosophy meets reality, and that point, in this case, somewhat alleviates the dissatisfaction of this conclusion.

Ugh. Another post about "evil".

2019-01-15T09:51:00.000-08:00

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice".

As I've said before, we're all ignorant of lots of things. That's fine. There's nothing morally wrong with ignorance itself, but I argue that it's immature to have opinions on things that you're ignorant of and irresponsible to have opinions on things you're ignorant of when those things affect the lives of others.

Now that we know what objective morality is, we can talk about it without ambiguity. So the question is where do we draw the line between irresponsibility and evil? I could argue that anything objectively immoral is evil, but I'm not sure that it's objective to say that people are evil. For example, Stalin told people to do lots of objectively immoral things, then those people chose, of their own free will, to do what he said. Obviously, Stalin's orders were not immoral in themselves; he was just a guy who said stuff. Telling his functionaries to starve Ukrainians doesn't violate the property of anyone. However, the functionaries chose to obey him and actually go out and violate property, which is immoral. So, are any of the above people evil? Stalin didn't do anything immoral, so can he be considered evil? His functionaries DID do immoral things, but, even though they did immoral things, does that make them evil?

I think that classifying people as evil is subjective. People are complex and they do many things, some of which may be immoral, some not. Certain actions can certainly be classified as evil if evil equates to immorality, but actions are cut and dried (did they violate property?), people are not.

Personally, I like labeling people as evil if they do as little as advocate for human suffering, but that's something I do out of frustration. The fact is that most people aren't very smart, they lack discipline, they're uneducated, immature and irresponsible. They want to comment on things that that trigger their emotions, but they don't want to do the work to be right about anything and this is what we're dealing with. The fact is that I have close friends that choose to be wrong about things that affect the lives of others and who advocate for human suffering ignorantly. I would never tell these friends to their face that they're evil, because I genuinely think (subjectively and arbitrarily) they're decent people and that makes me want to remain friends with them. I just have to accept the fact that they're imperfect in ways that they could change and that they simply never will change.

Everything's a trade-off .

I'm probably not going to stop calling certain people evil, since that's subjective, and it's my decision whether or not anyone meets my arbitrary criteria for such a label. I think, however, that it's important to understand that people can't be objectively evil, but their actions can be. It's more mature, in my opinion, to throw around the label of "evil" if you understand that difference.

So, if I say, "Stalin was evil" and someone else says, "no, he wasn't", then we're both right, since that's subjective and we both get to decide for ourselves what the threshold for what any evil person is. On the other hand, if I say, "Stalin's functionaries who carried out his orders did evil", that's not up for debate, being objectively true, according to the definition above.

If I say, "cops are evil, because they physically enforce unjust laws" and you say, "no, they aren't", i can't really argue with that, but, conversely, you can't argue that their enforcement isn't evil.

So the take-away is that actions can be objectively immoral and, therefore, evil, but, even though they may be immature and irresponsible, people can't be.

The Left ❤s racists and rapists

2018-10-14T12:02:00.001-07:00

"The Left" has come to represent the proverbial "barbarians at the gate" in modern culture, hell-bent on destroying civilization in many ways, but specifically by making the world a safer place for racists and rapists. This must be the case, since, otherwise, I'd have to conclude that they suffer from terminal ignorance and/or stupidity, which I'm always loathe to suppose, since stupidity is a legitimate excuse for holding and promoting absurd or dangerous positions.

One such absurd or dangerous position is the push to help racists reenter the public sphere by delegitimizing the term "racist", or "white supremacist"or others, by using these terms to describe people or actions that are clearly not racist. Over time people learn that these terms don't really mean anything, so that when real racists appear, there's no good way to call them out. It's really a great strategy, since it makes the accusers appear to be anti racist while giving cover to actual racists.

They help out their rapist and misogynist friends the same way. By referring to anything as rape, they dilute the meaning of the term in order to make it difficult, if not impossible, for female victims of actual rape to seek justice. The #metoo movement is an underhanded way to institute a rape culture which they pretend to fight against. It's especially vile because they use unsuspecting, well-intentioned women to act as soldiers in a war against themselves.

I think it's key to point out these tactics for those of us who truly care about women and the continued suppression of racism so that we don't inadvertently contribute to the left's despicable agenda.

Psychology of authoritarianism

2018-09-25T08:22:00.001-07:00

It's natural for humans (or any other animal) to try to increase their chances of survival by controlling, to the extent they can, their environment. Building shelters, creating tools, planting crops, etc.

When the agency to affect these changes is taken away, the desire to survive doesn't end, but changes shape. Psychological pathologies occur when natural development is inhibited. Authoritarianism (defined as the impulse to control others) may be the result of the inhibition of natural development through overbearing power structures like schools, religions or strong governments. Removing agency from people's lives results in the seeking of other ways in which to regain control over their circumstances. Authoritarianism arises when individuals perceive that they have little control over their own lives and attempt to compensate for that loss of agency by controlling the lives of others.

In the West, the current authoritarian culture most likely arose, initially, from the exploitation of the desire to survive by religions who used the idea of "eternal life" to control others, thereby reducing their agency and setting in motion the seeds of cultural authoritarianism. As individuals seek to recover their lost agency, they appeal to authority to control the lives of others, naturally giving rise to authoritarian governments.

Authoritarianism feeds on itself as it replaces natural, individual agency with the agency of authority. The subversion of the natural order creates instability in a society, eventually resulting in the crumbling of the affected society.

Authoritarianism is a social disease. Those who desire to recover agency may appeal to authority or to put themselves in a position of authority. In order to fight the progress of this disease, we should first understand it (as is the purpose of this post) and illuminate it.

the descent into madness: an idea for libertarians

2018-02-25T12:17:00.001-08:00

if you don't recognize that US culture is descending rapidly into madness, stop reading. if you're on the left or the right, stop reading. this isn't for you and you won't be capable of understanding it.

i've been thinking about the cultural decline of the US and what's causing it. the recent uproar over the latest school shooting in florida has finally kicked me into gear to formalize some thoughts. one, the gun debate is absurd. no matter what your position is on guns, the issue is clear: there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. if you want guns banned, you can point to australia, britain and japan (and their opposites, mexico, honduras and venezuela). if you support gun ownership you can point to switzerland and serbia (and their opposites, alabama and mississippi).

the problem isn't guns. it isn't too many guns and it isn't too few. people commit mass murder with guns, knives, pressure cookers, trucks and whatever they can get their hands on. in fact, more people are murdered in the US every year with knives than they are with assault rifles (or any other kind of rifle).

i don't buy the narrative that things are getting worse on the violence front. in fact, things are getting better almost all the time. crime rates are at or near their lowest levels in 50 years. though outrage is is at a hysterical level, the fact is that school shootings are less common now than at any time in the last few decades.

crime doesn't indicate, to me, that US culture is in decline. it's the inability of people to think clearly and suspend or control emotion on any subject, like the gun debate.

it's the desire to control others through the state. for example, in a recent conversation, my counterpart assumed that when i said i support the option for teachers to carry guns, that i meant that all teachers should be forced to carry guns.

it's the twisting of reality to support fantastical ideologies, like the recent myriad genders movement.

it's the deferral of logical thought to "authorities". so many support "science", yet take completely unscientific and often anti-scientific positions if that's what's dictated to them by "scientists". there's no thought, only deferral to authority.

i've posed a theory on one of the contributing factors of this decline previously. another, equally important, is the increasingly authoritarian nature of the culture. humans are not meant to be corralled, controlled and regimented. that's not what we are as a species. when we're rounded up at an early age, separated from our families and forced into artificial social arrangements every day for the most important years of our lives, psychological pathologies will emerge. i've expounded before on why schooling is bad for children, so there's no need for that detail here. taking control of a person's life away from them in this manner tends to force them to seek control over their circumstances in whatever way they can, manifesting itself in the attempt to control others. people try to control their own lives naturally as a survival mechanism. when children are controlled in school by adults while they are subjected to the idea that the only way to control your own circumstances is to control the circumstances of others, they are fed into an authoritarian loop from which most can't escape. they begin to see the world as a struggle to control others, since they have no control over their own lives and this idea is fostered in adulthood by a ubiquitous government regulating virtually every aspect of its victim's lives.

since schools don't teach critical thought (the vast majority of teachers aren't capable of this, so how could they ever teach it), a logical approach to dealing with issues is not possible. the only thing people have to go on is emotion. since their reaction is to seek to control others (the obvious way to achieve this is through government action), and they lack the ability to reason their way out of this way of thinking, they unwittingly further strengthen the authoritarianism that strangles society by continually empowering the very government that creates the problem in the first place, creating a cultural death spiral.

there's a condition among llamas called "berserk llama syndrome" where male llamas, separated from their mothers at an early age, imprint with their human caretakers and come to see them as fellow llamas. because males are highly territorial and aggressive with each other, they become aggressive with humans as well, since they can't differentiate humans from llamas. this is the same type of psychological pathology that is exhibited in US culture when people are forced into unnatural and restrictive social arrangements from an early age. of course, some are affected more than others. because the problem is so universal, it's hard to tell the depth to which it exists. for example, there are memes about spanking (a method of corporal discipline for children) that say something like, "my parents spanked me and i turned out well, therefore children should be spanked". in the mind of a person holding this belief, they see that they are able to function in the world, therefore, they were helped by this type of discipline. what they can't see is what could have been. are they able to function? sure. but there's no way to tell what this type of discipline may have cost them in their development. in short, they have no way to determine if this style of discipline has a positive or negative impact, in general. similarly, there's no way to tell what kind of impact authoritarianism is having on society overall, but i suggest that such a radical departure from the natural order can only have a negative impact. maybe that's the cause, or contributes to the cause of high rates of depression and other psychological maladies that have a significant portion of the populace medicated. this may compound the problems for some who are the most susceptible to psychological pathology sending them, like llamas, over the edge by the overbearing authoritarianism, seeking ultimate control over others by taking their lives with violence.

the US has a strong and deep culture of authoritarianism arising from multiple sources. it's difficult to see from the inside, but becomes clear when viewed from other cultures. the way in which this culture feeds on itself leads me to believe that there is no hope for addressing this in a constructive manner in its current, advanced state. most cannot be persuaded by reason, since they haven't developed the tools by which to recognize reason. the only thing that can be done is for those capable of recognizing authoritarianism is to help their children navigate it and to address it in their own lives to the extent to which they're capable of changing themselves.

revealing universal, objective morality

2017-11-24T12:44:00.004-08:00

UPDATE: I added some examples, since this is kind of hard to understand on its own.

i have always thought that morality was universal and objective. in other words, that it doesn't matter what your opinion is, morality is the same, for everyone, at a basic level, like 2+2=4. it doesn't matter if you like to write 2+2 in blue ink and =4 in green calligraphy, the fact remains that 2+2=4 is true, for everyone, all the time. even though i have thought that morality was universal and objective for a long time, i never had a good, logical argument for it. i'm going to take a shot at it now.

i'm defining morality as the principles involved in determining right from wrong.

property is defined as those material things to which no other person has an equal or higher claim, or to which no one else can be logically assigned responsibility. property might be one's own body, or some other material asset.

property is a constant among human beings. all humans own property: their bodies. this property can never be transferred. each person has sole control over this property and no one has a higher claim to it, nor can others logically be assigned responsibility for it. of course, this isn't the only property people own, but it is the only property that everyone owns.

humans are incapable of consenting to have their property violated. the violation of property, is, by definition, non-consensual. Does not being able to consent necessarily equal nonconsent? yes. if a person were to want an action to be taken by others with his property, then he could merely consent. the fact that he doesn't consent is evidence of nonconsent. in other words, nonconsent is equal to agreeing that property should not be violated. therefore, all humans agree that their property should not be violated. in this way, we can say that everyone agrees that violating one's property is bad, or wrong. the fact that all humans agree that their property should not be violated reveals a universal morality.

the universality of property creates a morality that is universal and the objectivity of property creates objectivity in morality.

For example: an ardent, anti-property communist, Karl, is sitting in the park. If a man, Mike, punches him in the face, Karl will either consent or not consent to being punched. Even if he doesn't act, he still must consent or refuse consent, if only in his mind. If, even as an emotional reaction, he objects to being punched, then he is refusing consent. If he has a negative emotional response, but is more dedicated to his beliefs than he is opposed to the punch, then he consents. If he agrees to be punched, even on an emotional level, he consents. If he does not agree to be punched, even on an emotional level, he refuses consent. If he doesn't want to be punched, but does want to show his anti-property mentality more than he objects to the punch, he is consenting.

Karl also cannot remain neutral. Even if he truly does not care if he is punched or not, he is giving consent for Mike to make Mike's own decision concerning Karl's property (Karl's face). Karl's consent or lack of consent reflects Karl's innate acceptance and understanding of property. Since property is an innate feature of humanity, it is impossible for him to avoid consent or non-consent.

thoughts on suicide

2017-06-17T11:39:00.002-07:00

after a couple of high-profile suicides in my world, i thought i'd address the subject.

i've said many times that suicide is the saddest and most shocking thing anyone can do. if you've never seriously considered suicide, then, chances are, you can't comprehend that state of mind. it isn't something that just happens one day. it isn't the result of "being sad". it isn't because you couldn't get to a person "in time". people don't kill themselves because they got some ice cream on a hot day, but their dog snatched it when they weren't paying attention, or because they had a bad day at work or broke a nail. it can seem this way to outsiders, but, in reality, the camel's back is being broken by a straw.

suicide is the end result of a long and persistent struggle in which a person's spirit is slowly crushed by an existential hopelessness. it isn't a "solution" to anything. it's similar to being lit on fire and running, in a panic, to whatever is going to extinguish that flame. it's a desperate attempt to alleviate the agony of a dying soul.

i can't really say that "mental illness" is always the cause of the condition, although "depression" usually is. i guess it depends on how you define mental illness, but one can certainly arrive at that point simply by his perception of reality. one may see his reality as truly hopeless in the long-term. he may see himself as unloveable or unable to achieve his most precious goals. that can make you feel that your life is a prison from which you can escape in only one way, or a walled pathway that never ends and never changes. what's the point of taking the next step when it only leads to another step the same as the one before except that your feet hurt a little more? why continue walking?

i see so many ignorant platitudes about how it's never "the answer". you don't know what the answer is for other people. maybe it is the answer. imagine that you were seriously injured in a car accident. as the car comes to rest, you slowly realize that your bones are broken, you're bleeding at a worrying pace and generally disfigured. imagine the panic of that realization.

"am i paralyzed?"

"am i ever going to walk again?"

"will i lose limbs?"

"what can my life ever be after this?"

only you can decide if your life will truly be worth living at that point. of course, everyone around you will be assuring you that it is, but they don't know. they're only saying that to make themselves feel good, or because they think that's what they're supposed to say , or because they don't want to lose you, regardless of what living means to you. that's kind of how depression is. it ravages your psyche. the longer you struggle with it, the more damage it does. sure, you will heal after the car accident. but what will you be left with? you may recover from depression, but will everything still work? will you be a fully-functioning person? maybe not. maybe not in important ways. will life be worth it in that state? only you can decide. maybe it truly won't be worth it. if a house catches fire, you can put the fire out, but you'll still be left with a burned house.

when you're sitting on the edge of your bed, with a gun in your hand, or in the bathtub with a razor blade, or whatever, every cell in your body is fighting you for survival. the depth of pain and hopelessness required to overcome that survival instinct is unfathomable for most. you don't get there without having suffered severe psychological damage. i'd argue that severe depression can be overcome and that much of that damage can be recovered; maybe all of it. i wouldn't argue, however, that suicide is preventable in a meaningful way by simply "getting to him before he pulls the trigger". at that point, the damage is done. the way to help people is to pay attention and understand when things are going wrong for your friends. it may be really hard to determine. there's a good chance that, even if you're paying attention, you won't catch it.

severe depression is an insidious thing. yes, it causes more damage the longer it persists, but it also has the tendency to destroy time. what i mean is that, when one is suffering, the time spent in that condition can be like time spent in a cave. sometimes people can struggle for years or even decades and when they come out of it, they're years behind where they would have otherwise been, which contributes to the diminished value of life.

all of that said, you can help people. i think the key is to be aware of your own ignorance. you don't know what they're going through if you haven't been there. recognize that. don't offer "solutions". don't give "pep talks". this isn't something you can fix. just be there, listen and be a silent sympathizer. don't shy away from physical contact. those things can ease the pain enough to make it tolerable. a lot of the problem is a feeling of isolation and some moron full of clichés and platitudes can be even more isolating because it makes you feel like even the people you try to find solace in can't understand you. if you can't understand a person's condition, admit it. tell them you don't understand, but that you care and you want to help. think of yourself as life-support; you may not be able to stop the inevitable (and, ultimately, maybe that's for the best) but you might help a person hold on long enough to recover. suicide isn't always preventable, even if you do everything "right", but you can take comfort in the fact that you, at least, offered shelter.

asking people to be aware of themselves is like asking cows to pole-vault, but if you truly care about someone who's suffering and who's confiding in you, you'd better give it a shot (self-awareness, not pole-vaulting) or you may be the only one who lives to regret it.

open borders: lew rockwell vs brian gray

2015-11-10T06:14:00.001-08:00

this morning lew rockwell posted this article on his great website, lewrockwell.com.

the article's headline on LRC is "Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property".

i have great respect for lew rockwell; he's a great libertarian, but this article is superfluous on a couple of points.

1) rockwell states, "Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people." when people talk about "open borders", does anyone really mean completely free movement of anyone to anywhere, regardless of whether the place they go is private property, or do they usually mean removing state-imposed restrictions at national borders?

should people be able to move from mexico to the u.s. freely, as long as they aren't infringing on the property of others? absolutely. that's what i, and probably and most other people think when they hear "open borders"; a removal of the state imposed restrictions on the movement of people. rule #1 when you're talking to people about complex ideas: define your terms.

2) he claims that in a regime of open borders, immigrants would flood the welfare state for benefits. "Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars." this might be true, but the fact that there are bad people (governments) doing bad things (stealing from some to give to others) doesn't justify further infringement on the rights of innocent people who are trying to cross those imaginary lines called borders. the problem is government, not immigrants. if one is to be restricted, let it be the guilty governments, not the innocent immigrants.

3) rockwell makes claims about the destruction of cultures due to open borders. "If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it." "cultures" are, often, artificial constructs of governments, anyway, so who cares if cultures change? they always change, with or without immigration, so why does that even matter? why are the cultures of the u.s. and mexico so different? because the governments of mexico and the u.s. actively keep us from mixing. if we were free, we would mix, and we'd become, over time, difficult to distinguish from one another.

overall, i agree with rockwell's premise that private property should never be infringed. the right to property, defined as the entitlement to one's voluntarily acquired possessions, is the only right that exists and it should be defended at all costs. that said, i have a problems with presenting things in a way that muddies the water when people have a difficult enough time understanding the obvious and simple non-aggression principle.

what is a bad person?

2015-10-24T19:07:00.001-07:00

the problem is that it's not obvious when you see a bad person. very few bad people actually think, "yeah, i'm a pretty bad person". they don't have "BAD" tattooed on their foreheads. they don't dress in black and have the hammer and sickle emblazoned on their shoulders (well, i guess some of them do). they might seem very normal in every way, likable, even. no one thought, "wow, that hitler sure is a bad person. let's vote for him!".

it wasn't obvious to most folks.

the difference between a bad person and a not-bad person, in my definition, is very subtle and easy to rectify. a bad person speaks out on issues that affect others while in a state of ignorance on those issues (an evil person acts on those bad ideas). murray rothbard once said, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

even though i'm not really talking about economics here, the point remains. i see people all the time on social media, praising presidential candidate A or B. it's ok if i want another man to force me to do what he says; it's not ok if i advocate that he do the same to you. we live in an age where the greatest repository of information in human history is literally at the tips of our fingers at virtually all times. there's no excuse except intellectual laziness or uncontrolled emotion that keeps you from using logic, based on correct premises, to understand the world around you.

victor pross said, "in the age of information, ignorance is a choice". he's right. like rothbard said, it's ok to be ignorant. there's nothing wrong with that. being ignorant doesn't make you a bad person by any means. what does make you a bad person is advocating that innocent people suffer because of your ignorance.

look, i'm ignorant about all sorts of stuff and i always will be. but, i have the intellectual integrity to understand that and to avoid advocating that others suffer because of my poor understandings. a major part of being a mature person is "knowing what you don't know". you don't have to have an opinion on everything. it's ok to say "i don't know". the right thing to do, for everyone, is to "stay in your lane" as some might say.

for instance:

if you don't know why minimum wages cause others to suffer, that's ok. if you don't know why minimum wages cause others to suffer and you advocate minimum wages, you're a bad person.

if you don't know why gun control is both practically and philosophically wrong, it's ok. if you don't know why gun control is both practically and philosophically wrong and you advocate gun control, then you're a bad person.

if you don't understand why taxation is theft, no problem. if you don't understand why taxation is theft, and you advocate taxation (or any of the things funded by it), you're a bad person.

if you don't understand that governments are not here for your well-being and that they use propaganda to speak to your emotions to gain your support for such orwellian programs as "the affordable care act", the "the patriot act", "net neutrality", "operation iraqi freedom", or any of the other let's-name-it-something-nice-because-the-rubes-will-support-it-without-thinking programs, and you support those programs, you are a bad person.

all of those examples make you a bad person because all of those things require that someone use violence against someone else. all of those examples require that someone initiate force against someone else.

if you don't understand why, well, you're already on the internet, so...

Non-aggression principle

the good thing is you're not doomed to be a bad person. simply take responsibility for your intellectual conditioning, develop a little integrity, and either learn or learn to keep quiet.