Does Voluntaryism Work?

I've not engaged in debate with libertarians a lot, because i tend to look for areas of agreement, & see libertarianism as an ally against statism.  But at some point, i knew i would need to look at the basis for the libertarian ideal.

What is the basic duty of government?

Provide justice.

This is the essence.  We want our rights protected from violators, either foreign or domestic.  The declaration of independence phrased it like this:  'That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'

People want to live in peace & provide for themselves.  A good govt does this without over burdening them with excessive taxation, or exploiting them for the benefit of the state.  A good govt is a deterrent to criminal activity & foreign aggression.  They provide common infrastructure & fair trade rules.  They  provide a stable currency so the citizens can engage in commerce & build a nation.

How does voluntaryism provide this?  By the open market.  They quote the non aggression principle & expect everyone to voluntarily observe it.

But here is where it fails:

1. If justice is a commodity, it can be bought & sold to the highest bidder.  This is a 'devolution' of society into more primitive governance, where 'might makes right'.
2. Without a common defense, and the power to enforce it, there would be a proliferation of 'justice providers', battling each other for control, & none as strong as if they combined their forces.  This weakens the society, & would encourage crime & foreign aggression.
3. There are NO examples of this actually working in any society in the history of mankind.

The non aggression principle is a fantasy.  It is just as much an illusion as collectivism.  Both require altruistic citizens, or a totalitarian system to enforce it.  That is the logical progression.  Any vacuum of power is filled by competing entities, looking to consolidate their authority & control.  The people will be at the mercy of those providers of power.. they do not choose them, or have any balance of power or rights to appeal to.  It opens the door for aggressive, power hungry oppressors, & does not secure the rights or interests of the people.

Everything in libertarianism hinges on following the non aggression principle.  But the whole history of man is that of aggression.  Governments are formed, either by aggressive powers, or to ward off those powers.  An aggressive force needs an equal or more powerful force to deter it.  Voluntaryists expect a balance of power to come naturally, not systematically.  But that is not how balance is achieved   It must be provided & enforced by a common force of will, powerful enough to deter competing factions.  This force is government.  Anarchy brings chaos, not order.

What we should be asking is, 'What is the best system of government we can provide for ourselves, to establish justice & provide for a common defense?'

Does 'no government' do that?  Anarchy movements seem to breed violence & destruction.  It is not a positive force on society, but negative.  There is destruction of property, looting, & lawlessness.  Generally, where anarchy has increased, the response of society is to turn to a totalitarian force to deter it.  Lawlessness breeds totalitarianism.  It does not increase freedom for the people, but decreases it.

The american ideal is that the people have a right to 'institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'  (declaration of independence)

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'  (preamble of us constitution)

This works.  Yes, we've got some problems, but if we can get back to the basics, we can have a simple, effective government. The us constitution is a good base to work from. It provides a solid framework for governance.. justice, self defense, & protection of individual liberties. Of all the governmental systems in the history of the world, NONE have provided more freedom, prosperity, & opportunity than the US system of government.

It was very difficult to set something like this up.. we needed a lot of idealistic, altruistic people at the onset, which is extremely rare in human history. The usual scenario is for nice sounding words to be corrupted by those ascending into power, & the original ideals being set aside for the rulers' convenience. Look at every place where a statist system was rebelled from.. monarchies, dictators.. just about every nation on earth has had one oppressive state replaced by another, with less freedoms than before. The US evolution of govt is very rare.. for MORE freedom to be dispensed to the people by the central state entity.  We should not take it for granted, or toss it aside casually, for some pie in the sky fantasy.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Factories to workers, land to peasants! 

Peace, Bread and Land"

"Revolution is not a crime! 

Rebellion is justified!"

"Dare to think, dare to act".

"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!"
"Change We Can Believe In!"

None of these slogans provided freedom for the people, but only led to more oppression.  Some people may be bored with the US constitution, or think it obsolete, but the alternative is authoritarianism, if we cast it aside.

I've had enough slogans.  Give me something that works, with a real track record.

Capital Punishment

I see the central argument as this:

Capital punishment does more to prevent wrongful death than not.

The goal is preventing or minimizing wrongful deaths. Murderers kill people, & those who die at their hands have their basic right to life violated. Justice has said for millinea that if you kill someone, you lose your right to life. 'An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life', was how it was in the old jewish law, & the same principle has been in force in every civilization of mankind. The anti death penalty argument is that it is barbaric, & there are times when mistakes are made. I also argue that capital punishment is a greater deterrent for those who might be considering a capital crime. But i will address the 2 main points against capital punishment:

1. 'Barbaric' is a judgment call. Justice is either always barbaric, or it brings order to a barbaric society, depending on which side of the law you are on. It is an emotional word to elicit sympathy for the perpetrators of the crime. It really has no place in the central debate, which is how to prevent or minimize wrongful death.  A society with the fewest wrongful deaths is the least barbaric.

2. Mistakes. This is probably the main argument against capital punishment. Sometimes, a person is accused wrongly, & convicted. In seeking justice, another wrongful death is caused.
a. Many criminals are repeat offenders. They cause more 'wrongful deaths' than any travesties of justice. If the goal is to prevent wrongful deaths, that is served better by taking the lives of violent criminals, with the very rare wrongful death of an innocent. Incarcerated criminals also commit murder in prison, adding more 'wrongful deaths' to their resume.
b. An innocent locked up for life is slim consolation. A travesty of justice has still occurred, & justice has not been served.

I submit that justice is not barbaric, & is a stronger deterrent. Another benefit of capital punishment, is the taxpayers are not overburdened with the very expensive cost of incarcerating those who commit capital crimes.

My arguments are few & simple. Capital punishment is a better deterrent & minimizer of wrongful death than not. You will have fewer wrongful deaths, statistically, with capital punishment than by keeping capital offenders alive. They will not be able to kill again, nor will they kill while incarcerated. Logically, capital punishment is a better solution to wrongful death. Most anti capital punishment arguments center on the plight of the poor accused. But no consideration is given to the victims, or future victims of the perpetrator. Many family members have to spend their lives continually involved in the crime, since the perpetrator is still alive, & they have to appear every so often before a parole board to oppose releasing the killer. They are not able to find closure, & their lives are disrupted by the continual opening of old wounds. Capital punishment brings closure for them.

Here's a summary of the benefits of capital punishment for a civilized society:

1. It minimizes wrongful deaths.
2. It is a deterrent to capital crimes.
3. It relieves the citizens from having to pay for the criminal's incarceration for life.
4. It provides more closure for the victim's family.

I have not listed statistics to support these points, but they are readily available. My purpose here was to make logical arguments for the value of the death penalty in a civilized society.

Is there an American culture?

I think there is an 'american' culture.. at least as much as there is a mexican culture, or german, english, etc. It is a blend, of course, but it has its own identity. What is 'mexican' culture? Is it aztec? Mayan? No, it is a blend.. an evolution of spanish european, native indian, & catholicism. It has morphed all those factors into what we call, mexican. It is different than argentinian, or guatemalan, even though those are often lumped together as 'hispanic'. But really, the only thing that is really 'hispanic' is the common language.. & perhaps catholicism.

American culture is very similar. It is a blend of christianity, native american, english, mixed european, with lots of individualism & libertarian values. But imo, it is being overwhelmed by those who look to govt to 'take care of us'. We are continually evolving, too, & the current changes are not in the right direction for individual freedom. The culture of individual responsibility & personal liberty is morphing into an entitled, helpless, dependency, where the state is looked to as a nanny to care for us.

Mexicans have been ruled by tyrants, dictators, corrupt juntas, & just about every flavor of statist domination you can imagine over the centuries. They have NO history of individual freedom. I would not expect immigrants coming here to immediately 'get' what america is about. Most other immigrants have had to adapt to this idea, too. Some came here for exactly that: Freedom. Most mexicans who come here do so for jobs. A great percentage intend to return home.. this is a temp job for them, & they identify themselves as mexicans, not americans. Of course, most do not return home, but once the kids come, they settle down & get established.. usually in a mexican sub culture, as other ethnic groups have done in our history.

But previous immigration surges were different. Italians came here for economic prosperity & opportunity, & their culture morphed into the american culture, as did german, irish, english, etc. They came to be 'americans', & to identify with the new ideology. We had the mexican culture, too, which has had a large influence in the border states like tx, nm, az, ca. The mexican influence has been greater than other immigration surges in the past, if only because of the sheer numbers.. the existing culture has not had time to assimilate them, & they are not coming to be assimilated, but to dominate.. at least that is the result, if not the intention.

I like mexican culture. I went to a catholic boarding school in the 60's in Guadalajara. I live in az now, where mexican culture is all around, & flavors much of the culture here. I don't think that MY heritage should always be the one to take the back seat.. i don't mind celebrating other cultures, but they don't have to demonize mine to do so. That is a bit of a problem to me.

I think this argument can be applied both ways, yet it is too often a one way street:

Preservation of one's own culture does not require contempt or disrespect for other cultures. ~Cesar Chavez


what is 'european' culture? The scottish are different from the greeks, & the swedes are very different from the portuguese. Many europeans are having a backlash over immigration, too, & theirs is nothing like the scale & scope of what is happening in the us. The french people are starting to revolt over the north african immigration, as are the danes, germans, english, & many others where other cultures are coming in but not assimilating. It is a bit of a defense mode.. wanting to defend & preserve their heritage from being overwhelmed by the incoming culture. We in the us don't have that problem as much, since our culture is historically, multicultural. But i think the disorderly, lawless nature of the current immigration mess is what most american citizens object to.

There is a mix of hawaiian culture, too. They have embraced a lot of the portuguese seaman into their own, as well as the english & japanese. Many native hawaiians are not sympathetic to american culture, but want to (understandably) hang on to their own. The numbers make that hard, too. There is also a subculture of hawaiian culture, just like any other. I have half hawaiian cousins on the big island, & there is a culture of 'menehune', mixed with catholicism, that opposes the big polynesian, kamehameha types. This is probably similar to the hopis, who don't identify as navajos, but insist on their own subculture, too.

There is no 'culture' in any land that goes on for long unchanged. All cultures are constantly evolving. Sometimes they are conquered by an outside influence, sometimes they are slowly changed ideologically from within, as when christianity changed european culture in the first millineum.

What sets america apart, imo, is tolerance for other cultures.. multiculturalism. That is the common denominator in america. Generally, we get along, & will have a guinness with the irish on st patty's day, have coronas with the mexicans on cinco de mayo, & lift our wine glasses with the italians on columbus day. We like chinese food, mexican, italian, greek, soul food, & just about any cultural delicacy we absorb into our own. THAT is my culture. It is distinctly american, & i'm proud of it.

Tolerance: A One Way Street?

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. ~Karl Marx

Many ideals are intolerant of others. Islam, Christianity, communism, monarchies, & just about any political movement. Islam has at it's core the drive to convert the infidels. Christianity, too. Jesus claimed himself 'the way, the truth, & the life..' He is the exclusive way to god. Kings & dictators do not entertain competing ideals in their courts. Even america is not tolerant of statist overreach.. amendments & limits were put in place to prevent that. Of course, those things have been ignored in the name of progress & tolerance, but we have lost the ideal along the way.

A true idealist can be tolerant of other people.. they can 'live & let live' with differing views, but they are not idealistically tolerant. They can vehemently criticize opposing ideals, yet have acceptance for the people. I think that differentiation is often overlooked. I routinely blast statism & govt overreaches, while promoting the ideals of individual freedom. The statist left says this is intolerant. But the two ideologies are incompatible. You cannot have statist domination AND individual freedom, so one must give. Individualism has been doing all the giving for the last 50 yrs or so. It's time for us to stand firm in our ideals & demand they give some.. the state never relinquishes power voluntarily. It must be taken.

I'm fine with letting people have differing views on philosophy, religion, & even personal preferences. But if their 'preferences' include taking my choices in life, they cross the line. Their call for 'tolerance' is a mask for oppression.

In america we can live with differing religious views.. we can live with differing views of state powers, too, as long as it follows the limits within the constitution, or is changed by the process we have in place. But the statists have been worming their changes in by stealth & deception, not open changes in amendments. They sing the virtues of tolerance, but do not listen to their own music. They vilify & demonize any opposition, not addressing the core issues, but deflecting with nazis & the klan.

Just about every debate or discussion i've had with a statist/leftist ends with either hitler or racism being drawn. Those are their trump cards.  It is most ironic that both nazis & the klan are statist systems needing strong state power to promote their agendas, but they ignore the irony.  Their calls for 'tolerance' are hypocritical smoke screens, to mask their own intolerance. They do not debate with reason & facts, but use deceptive tactics to generate an illusion. They are masters of propaganda.. truth or logic has no meaning to them, just how can things be spun to appear, in an emotional way. I have zero tolerance for these tactics, which i find despicable. I see their basic agenda is to deceive, not enlighten, so any sympathy i might have with their reasoning is lost with their scheming. If & when these tactics are employed, or when lies are presented as truth, or madness is portrayed as wisdom, i become very intolerant. I do not attack the person, but the ideals & tactics being presented are fair game, & i'll not mince words.

'Tolerance' is a way to disarm the opposition, if used correctly. Individualists & libertarians have been losing ground to the statists for years, all in the name of 'tolerance'. It is time to demand some tolerance from the state.. to be intolerant to their power grabs. They act like they take the high road, with their talk of tolerance, but it is a one way street.

Deceptive Government numbers

We pay the govt to compile statistics, which they are too eager to do, to show us how great they are at managing the economy.  The GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is one of them.  It is prominently displayed as an indicator of economic growth, but it is a sham.. a deliberate deception to portray a false reality.


They double count taxes, include deficit spending, wars, & disaster relief.

Let's say the citizens of a nation make $1T. They pay 20% in taxes.. ~ $200B. The govt takes that money & passes it around, adding it to the gdp. That should not be added to the 'product' since it was already counted. Next, they borrow another $500B, & pass that around, adding it to the gdp number. So we've gone from a nation that made $1T, to one that made $1.7T without any more actual production. That is why it is a misleading number, & is used to convey a false perception of reality. True production has gone down in the us.. for many years, now. Yet the gdp has stayed high. Look at manufacturing jobs. Look at exports & trade balance. These are better indicators of the health of the economy, not the amount of money that can be printed & shuffled around, with every banker & politician skimming off a bit to add to the gdp.

And, in a circular reasoning or ponzi style of accounting, they use the gdp number they have manipulated to justify printing MORE money. They print money, add it to the gdp, loudly proclaim, 'look how great our gdp is!' & print some more to dump into the number. Of course it would look good. But it is a meaningless number, used only to deceive.. the essence of propaganda.

The GDP is used to deceive, not enlighten. It is not a measure of production, but includes spending by govt. It is too easy to make the gdp numbers look good by number juggling. If you took out all the disaster relief, all the war costs, all the govt expansion.. the actual 'product' of the nation is down. But they parade this number around to prove we're doing great! If i could add $17T to my balance sheet, i could look good too. But they don't include debt.. only spending, which makes it a propaganda tool.

Everyone knows manufacturing is down.. we are exporting our jobs to china. The big banks siphon off a bunch of cash with every QE, & that is included in the gdp! Really?!? Print a bunch of money, toss it into the economy, enriching the big moneyed elite & shady politicians, then add it into the gdp. Then use that gdp 'growth' to justify printing more money & flooding the economy. Rinse. Repeat. It is more like a ponzi scheme, this current monetary policy.

Look how great the economy is doing! Look at all the people getting rich & trickling down their wealth to the rest of us! We've got plenty of basis for our fiat money, all the increase proves it! It is circular accounting reasoning. If a company did this, they would be put in jail or shut down by the sec. Instead, the govt does it, & uses it to prove a false premise.

With the GDP, the govt gives a false view of 'production' by including non production, double counting, & deficit spending. Actual production can decline, & the number won't show it.

Let's put it on a smaller scale to illustrate.

Your town has farmers & some manufacturing in it. They are the main employers. The total income for the town is $1M (small town). That includes the mayor, the police chief, the firemen, the street sweeper.. everything.. even the mayor's baby sitter. The taxes are small, & they have no debt. Let's put the taxes at 10%.. $100,000 was the tax revenue for the town. Taxes are counted twice, since they are taken from those who worked & produced, originally, then they are counted again when paid out to the public sector. The total gdp for the town is $1.1M.

Then one of the farms is sold or traded to the forest service. It becomes unproductive. A business shuts down. The town suffers a 20% loss in income. They are making $800k, now. The people that work at these are laid off, & go on welfare. The town decides to raise taxes to 20%. That puts revenues at $160k, to help support those who lost their jobs. That puts their gdp at $960k.

But the added tax burden causes another business to fail. Now they are at 30% reduction & are making $700k. The city fathers decide they cannot keep raising taxes, so they begin to borrow. Their revenues are at $140k, but there are more people on welfare, & more govt employees are hired. So they borrow $100k to supplement the revenues. That puts their total gdp at $940k.

But this is just feeding a downward spiral. More businesses fold, & more revenue is needed as the town increases it's governmental footprint. They borrow $300k the next year, with revenues of $120k. The private sector is making $600k, now, but the total gdp is at $1M. Productivity is down, but the gdp makes it look the same. It is an illusion, as the downward spiral continues. The state takes more & more, & borrows more & more, yet the producers of the nation are producing less.

The current US govt is borrowing 1/3 of it's budget costs. If true production decreases by 1/3, you would not know by the gdp, because it shows all the deficit spending, borrowing, & expansion of govt as 'production'. Want good gdp numbers? Start a war, or borrow & spend $1T every year, or both!

Existence: What is the point?

It is the philosophical question of the ages.  Yet in all this time, we have not arrived at a definitive answer, or even a consensus.
Our instincts are pretty basic:
1. Survival.
2. Reproduction.
3. Play.

These 3 things are the central motivations in most of the things we do.  ..at least they are the first things we attend to.  If we're hungry, wet, or cold, we tend to address those things, first.  After that, we engage in other things that do not necessarily fit into the first two basic goals.  We can call it play, or amusements, or hobbies.. some are physical things, some mental.  Many of us have hobbies that are simply extensions of the base instincts.  Hunting, fishing, & cooking are big hobbies for humans.  We do not do them simply for survival, but for fun.  Then there are the house hobbies.. decorating, setting up a 'nest', home remodeling..  i suppose clothes & fashion hobbies are in the same vein, though they also cross over into the other 'hobby' of reproduction.

Reproduction is the base instinct, but sex is also a hobby or pastime.. it also becomes something we do for play & amusement.  Obviously, we do not procreate every time we pursue or engage in sex.. many times, if not most, we want to avoid that aspect of it.  But interaction with the opposite sex is a major motivation for much of our lives.

Then there are the other things we do that do not directly relate to either survival or reproduction.  Travel, games, reading, mental or physical challenges, sports & competition.. these kinds of things we do for fun.

But some times in our lives, we stop & ask ourselves:  Is this it?  Is that all there is?

That question usually brings up more philosophical reasons for our existence.  And this usually includes the question of a supreme being.  Is there a god?  Is there something or someone beyond our sensory realm?  It is very ironic that this most basic question for our existence remains in such dispute.  But it brings up an observation that should be evident:

If there is a god, he has hidden himself so as to remain a  mystery.

Humans have argued for millennia over his nature, traits, & even existence.  The main reason we search for god is we want to know if our existence here is all there is, or is there an afterlife?  The survival instinct is great, & the prospect of eternal death & non-existence is unsettling.  We want to live.  So then the question arises:

Is there a god, or have we 'created' him in response to our fear of death?

We cannot empirically prove there is a god, nor can we disprove him.  Some people have claimed contact with god, but those are personal anecdotes & are not empirically verifiable by the rest of us.  Logically, we do not know.  Subjectively, based on our life experiences, background, & information we've received, we might have a belief.  Many others will share & corroborate that belief.  But it is a logical conclusion & simple observation that we do not know.  There is not even a consensus, even if truth depended on that, which it does not.

Now, from their philosophical basis, people have concluded duties or purposes for their lives, beyond the basics.  Some have concluded that helping other people.. giving of their labor to meet other's basic needs is something 'good'.  Most people give from their abundance, if they have enough to share, but some give altruistically, even sacrificing their own basic needs to help others.  Some have concluded that others can be exploited for personal ambition or their pursuit of 'more'.  They don't mind taking advantage or others, or using them to meet or even exceed their basic needs.  Generally, we call this 'bad'.  While there are extremes, most people fall in the middle somewhere.  They give & help others, but they will also take advantage at times.  Few, if any, are all one or the other.  Somewhere in the middle is also the instinct to coexist with others.. a herd instinct for mutual survival & preservation.

I hope no one is expecting me to answer this question, or to provide deep insight into the meaning of life.  I'm only providing a perspective.. an overview of our existence.  I also think our instincts AND beliefs motivate us more than we realize.  I am a deist.  I believe in God.  But i cannot prove him to others.

Think about your life.. your thoughts & actions.  What are your basic motivations for the things you do, say, & even think?  Why do you believe the way you do, & how much do those beliefs provide the basis for your thoughts & actions?

FDR speech excerpt from October 31, 1936

 From Franklin Roosevelt, October 31, 1936

What was our hope in 1932? Above all other things the American people wanted peace. They wanted peace of mind instead of gnawing fear.
First, they sought escape from the personal terror which had stalked them for three years. They wanted the peace that comes from security in their homes: safety for their savings, permanence in their jobs, a fair profit from their enterprise.
Next, they wanted peace in the community, the peace that springs from the ability to meet the needs of community life: schools, playgrounds, parks, sanitation, highways--those things which are expected of solvent local government. They sought escape from disintegration and bankruptcy in local and state affairs.
They also sought peace within the Nation: protection of their currency, fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of wild-cat speculation, the safety of their children from kidnappers.
And, finally, they sought peace with other Nations--peace in a world of unrest. The Nation knows that I hate war, and I know that the Nation hates war.

..nothing wrong with any of this.. all politicians promise this. This is a very good example & concise summary of the basic desires of people and what they want from their government.

1. Labor laws to protect the worker.
2. Infrastructure for the good of the country.. 'those things which are expected of solvent local government'
3. Financial regulations to end wild-cat speculation.. securities watchdog
4. Fair profit from enterprise.. fair business regulations & a level playing field
5. Protection of the currency.
6. peace with other nations

This is not the formula for a nanny state. This is not an outline for a socialist agenda. These are fair, reasonable duties for a government of the people.   Lincoln or Jefferson could have said this. This is all the government we need.

We let the politicians divide us over insignificant details.. things we can work out in our leisure. They plunder & corrupt the entire system, & hand out candy to distract us. We need to narrow our focus on what we want from govt. I hope that we can see the nanny state as impossible.. it is bankrupting us. The currency will collapse. But unfortunately, too many voters think they can still profit from the govt ponzi scheme. They know it cannot last, & many at the end will be left holding the bag, they just hope it will last a few more years while they get theirs. This is not a responsible, protective view of loyal citizens of a nation. We should want good things for the country for our children & grandchildren. We should not want to bring it to ruin, just so we can live on easy street for a while.