Most People Are Pro-Slavery

anarchoI’m against slavery. That sounds pretty obvious; most of us think we’re against slavery. But almost every person on earth actually supports slavery. This is because almost every person on earth thinks we need government. So by definition, almost every person on earth thinks we need, at least a little, slavery.

Government is the monopolization of the initiation of force in a particular area. But it takes money to monopolize force, so money is extracted from the working population involuntarily and called taxes. We all must work for our money, a portion of which we are forced to hand over to government. And what do you call it when someone is forced to labor for another? Ah-hem, I believe that is called slavery.

The protest: “but the government provides us with services like roads, protection, and a safety net”. Slave owners have always provided their slaves with a shack to live in and scraps to eat. The mafia has long provided “protection” to businesses under their jurisdiction, and extorted the money to pay for it.

Even conceding that we need a little government is conceding that we need a little slavery. You are saying, we need force in order for society to work properly. Once this point is conceded the argument becomes how much force is properly applied to effectively run society. That is why conceding that we need any government means you have lost the debate against the initiation of force. You cannot simultaneously believe the initiation of force is never okay and believe government is okay–unless you’re practiced in doublethink.

Initiating force is immoral (in contrast to responding to force initiated against you); it essentially matches the golden rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. How can we need something immoral, no matter how limited, in order to make the world run properly? The world would be best if no initiation of force was justified by “the system” or considered legitimate. So join me in my desire to end slavery once and for all, and abolish government in favor of free market organization of society.

To begin exploring the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism, check out my posts Anarcho Capitalism, Without Government Who Would Build the Roads?, True Utopia: Communism versus Anarcho-Capitalism (Part I), and True Utopia: Communism versus Anarcho-Capitalism (Part II).

For anyone who is open to new ideas, and actually solving many problems humanity faces, the system of anarcho-capitalism is certainly intriguing enough to learn about and consider. It is unhealthy that most people never even think about a system without government; we’ve accepted as a premise that we as a society “need” government. Studying anarcho-capitalism is simply the practice of checking that premise, which I would argue, is a false assertion.

21 thoughts on “Most People Are Pro-Slavery

  1. “Initiating force is immoral”

    But the NAP does not define what force is, or who’s morality we are in reference to.

    Example: Lets say you are a part of some society that has a concept of property rights that include land. Lets further say that you homesteaded some of that land (you have 40 acres) which you have developed to some degree, put a hose there, dug a well, planted some crops and put up a fence. Now lets say there is some other society, one where they do not have a concept of property rights for land.

    If that person came onto your land, found a small currently unused patch of it and set up a tent, you might consider that aggression. After all, they came onto your land, and are now in contention with you for the resources. The person who put the tent up on the other hand, have not used force at all. Property rights do not include land in their philosophy, so it is in fact you, the homesteader who has used force, by restricting others from this land they wish to use.

    Who is right, who is wrong? It all depends on perspective, the NAP does not speak to this. It tells us only how we should treat the legitimate owner of the land, but nothing at all about how to determine who the legitimate owner is. It really gets worse, because by in large, we all follow the non-aggression principle anyway. It is just our definition of who has legitimacy over property that changes.

    I find arguing from the NAP to be mostly useless, mostly everyone agrees that you cannot use force to get what you want, even a thief does not want what they have stolen to be stolen from them. So,if just about everyone on the planet agrees with the NAP, then why do Ancaps and Libertarians continue to argue it, acting like it is some philosophical gem unique to their worldview? I am not saying that ancaps or libertarians are wrong, rather there are good and logical arguments that can be made (something I do not think a pure socialist can match). But arguing the NAP seems pretty “well duh” to me, and I doubt you would find many philosophies that .would disagree, they just see things from a different perspective.

    • If everyone agreed with the non-agression principal, then we would not have government, and that is the point I am making. By allowing government to exist we are allowing aggression. So if as you say mostly everyone agrees that initiation of force is wrong, then the proper thing to do would not allow anyone, including government, to initiate force. Since force is part of the definition of government, eliminating what we think of as government would be a necessary step, one that, if it is true most people agree on NAP, most people would also agree on. The unique thing about the worldview of ancaps arguing NAP is that a whole segment of force in the population would be eliminated in favor of free transactions deciding law.

      So there will always be these different definitions of what constitutes force. Some are obvious, but the one you talk about is not quite as obvious. But why is having a body able to use “legitimate force” (the government) deciding these things better than a society where private individuals that have something to gain or lose decide the law? Essentially in your example it would come down to how society had structured property rights, through the businesses they patronize (specifically police like security businesses).

      So then if it was generally accepted that property is land in current use that you maintain and frequent and “publicly claim”, and it has been treaded upon in some type of timeframe then the person with the tent would be the aggressor. Currently we must be generally aware of laws of regions, and in anarcho-capitalism the camper would need to know what the practices of the region are.

      Anyway the real point is that it would be better for businesses to decide these things when there is a market to do so, versus the current system of blanket force being allowed to be initiated by the state. Better in the sense of less overall force being initiated, and a more positive outcome (more recourse) for all parties who force is initiated against.

      Thanks for commenting!

    • Private ownership of property is pertinent to the ancap society. One would have to show ownership of a region of land in order to maintain his or her right over it. In cases where this indeed could become murky, voluntary courts or councils and even individuals coming to an agreement would certainly clear it up.

  2. Pingback: Words are Meaningless Unless Defined | Vigilant Vote

  3. Pingback: Abolition, Agorism, and Anarchy: My Three A’s of PorcFest | Vigilant Vote

  4. Pingback: Self Preservation for Abolitionists in a Slave State | Vigilant Vote

  5. Pingback: 500th Post: Let Me Define “Vigilant” and “Vote” | Vigilant Vote

  6. Pingback: Must a New System be Perfect to Replace an Imperfect Reality? | Vigilant Vote

  7. Pingback: 15 Ways You Are Wrong About Anarchists | Vigilant Vote

  8. Pingback: Abolition, Agorism, and Anarchy: My Three A’s of PorcFest | Joe Jarvis

  9. Pingback: The Declaration of Independence | Joe Jarvis

  10. Pingback: 15 Ways You Are Wrong About Anarchists | Joe Jarvis

  11. Pingback: Must a New System be Perfect to Replace an Imperfect Reality? | Joe Jarvis

  12. Pingback: A Degree of Slavery: Words From Frederick Douglas | Joe Jarvis

  13. Pingback: The Bad Quaker talks Abolition with Bill Buppert | Joe Jarvis

  14. Pingback: 500th Post: Let Me Define “Vigilant” and “Vote” | Joe Jarvis

  15. Pingback: Wars are Started by Governments | Joe Jarvis

  16. Pingback: Words are Meaningless Unless Defined | Joe Jarvis

  17. Pingback: Not Perfect, Just Better | Joe Jarvis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s