Nature Says Every Individual Matters

There are two basic reproductive strategies nature has taken, with profound implications for evolution and consciousness.

The first, the strategy used by mammals, is to produce a small number of young offspring and then carefully nurse each one to maturity. This is a risky strategy, because only a few progeny are produced in each generation, so it assumes that nurturing will even out the odds. This means that every life is cherished and carefully nurtured for a length of time.

But there is another, much older strategy that is used by much of the plant and animal kingdom, including insects, reptiles, and most other lifeforms on Earth. This involves creating a large number of eggs or seeds and then letting them fend for themselves. Without nurturing, most of the offspring never survive, so only a few hardy individuals will make it into the next generation. This means that the energy invested in each generation by the parents is nil, and reproduction relies on the law of averages to propagate the species. –The Future of the Mind, Michio Kaku

It is important to learn from, and work with nature if we want to have success as a species. The natural way of humans is to cherish each individual. Society does not function properly when elites try to organize us like ants in a colony.

This is clearly seen in economics. Keynesians think that the economy can be designed and tweaked by “experts” like a machine. But this ends up creating bubbles—the appearance of demand where there is none, which leads to misplaced investment. But promoters of a free market understand that there is a natural order, and when human interactions are left alone, the proper fruit will grow—mutually beneficial transactions based on supply and demand. The economy is a crop to be planted and given the proper environment to grow.

In this same sense, society, and each individual making up that society, will be better off when the natural approach is taken. The natural approach is what gave rise to our species’ dominance in the first place. Yes, it was a risky strategy of nature to spend so much time on each individual. But it resulted in arguably the best, most intelligent creatures on Earth. Not just humans, but dolphins, apes, dogs and every other mammal. This is the age of mammals, the animals which cherish the individual. Things will go south very quickly if mammals are treated like insects or reptiles; like expendable cogs in a machine.

Learn from, and mimic what nature has created. Humans succeeded by valuing every individual, not hampering their potential in the name of the “greater good”. The human race is threatened by those who see some individuals as expendable, in order to benefit a minority of other individuals, in the name of the survival of the species. But nature tells us that without the survival of the individual, there will be no species.

An ant colony can benefit from sacrificing some ants for the greater good of the colony. But humans are not ants. The species only exists because individuals were nurtured, therefore the freer every one of us is to choose our own path in life, the better we will do as a species.

Human Progress is Like a Marathon…

I try to play devil’s advocate with myself, in order to always move closer and closer to truth in my beliefs. So the other day while running, which is a great outlet for getting the mind flowing as much as the blood, it occurred to me that there must be examples of government advancing civilization at certain times.

It is practically impossible to tease apart all the factors in a society that contribute to its advance, stagnation, or decline. Clearly it is easy to point to the “benefit” government creates in one sector, while ignoring the cost in another sector (for example corn subsidies might be good for the farmer, but bad for the taxpayer). That is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about examples of government force being wielded so as to prevent a cataclysmic catastrophe, or bring about a monumental advance. Perhaps an example would be Chinese government funded invention and discovery of the 15th century.

Now per usual, I have to remind readers that I still do not believe the end justifies the means. Even if I stole $10,000 from my neighbors, knowing they would blow it on booze and cigarettes, and invested it for a return of 20% over just one year, returning $12,000 to them, this would still be wrong. Even if I do know how to manage their money better than them, it is still theft, and it is still aggression to take it in the first place, even if I return it with interest, and even if I buy them something with their stolen money that would greatly improve their quality of life.

But anyway suppose government could advance civilization, on the whole, without harming anyone in the sense that everyone’s life was actually improved in some objective manner. Yes, already a big what if, but considering extreme examples can help define our philosophy. So for argument’s sake say a government has in the past over a ten, twenty, hundred, or five hundred year period “advanced civilization”.

The Marathon to Become Civilized

To run a marathon in just under three and a half hours takes about an 8 minute per mile pace, and this is a respectable marathon time for any amateur. Now, in order to hit the target time, the best way to run it is slightly negative splits, that is, to get just a little faster each mile. No one is perfect, and most people end up varying a bit from mile to mile, but it is hard to hit your target time if you are off by more than about about ten seconds on either side, per mile.

What happens if our marathoner decides to go out with the elite runners, and does a 4:40 first mile? Well he is sure as hell not going to hit his target marathon time of 3:30. Most likely he will have to drop out of the race because he has never sprinted so fast in his life, and his legs now feel like jello. If our runner manages to push himself the rest of the way after that first mile, we are looking at a five hour marathon at best.

Relying on government to advance civilization is like forcing an 8 minute mile pace marathoner to sprint at random times throughout the race, “because it will more quickly get him to the finish”. And sure, for 4 minutes and 40 seconds of that marathon, it was easy to argue that he was quickly advancing towards his goal. But at what overall cost?

Civilization will naturally progress, and some miles might be slower than others, but government does not get us any closer to our overall goal in any real sense. It may feel like we are rapidly advancing at times, but the hidden costs of that advance are bound to slow progress down later. The monster we allow in government force will always come back to haunt us with a destructive war, genocide, epidemic, or any number of other unintended consequences of allow some people to break the rules of society that the rest of us must live by.

Chinese Versus European Progress

An old article I wrote based on Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel contrasted the centralized authority of Chinese government in the early 1400’s, with the diverse competing governments of Europe in the late 1400’s. China had 400 foot ships going on treasure expeditions as early as 1405, but when a rival faction took over the government, they grounded the fleet, dismantled the shipyards, and made shipping illegal in order to centralize their power. This one decision possibly set China back a thousand years; but it was the same type of power which initially gave China a navy more advanced than would again appear on earth until the 18th century.

Columbus had a 62 foot ship almost a hundred years after the Chinese were sailing to Africa on 400 foot ships. But even though Europe was initially behind in technological development, their progress was steady according to Diamond.

The story was the same with Europe’s cannon, electric lighting, printing, small firearms, and innumerable other innovations: each was first neglected or opposed in some parts of Europe for idiosyncratic reasons, but once adopted in one area, it eventually spread to the rest of Europe…

Europe’s geographic balkanization resulted in dozens or hundreds of independent, competing statelets and centers of innovation. If one state did not pursue some particular innovation, another did, forcing neighboring states to do likewise or else be conquered or left economically behind. Europe’s barriers were sufficient to prevent political unification, but insufficient to halt the spread of technology and ideas. There has never been one despot who could turn off the tap for all of Europe, as of China. (413-416)

I’m using Europe as a “free market” example because the states were competing with each other. But clearly their power was also a government sprint versus a steady pace. Perhaps the Portuguese fishermen who had already discovered North America would have set a different tone for the new world than Columbus’s government funded expedition, and the government armadas which followed.

Maybe working together with the Native Americans in the interest of mutually beneficial transactions would have advanced society naturally so that we stayed on pace to reach our marathon goal. Instead we are still at mile 18 when we wanted to be finishing.

Atlas Protection: For All Your Security Needs

In my novel, Anarchy in New England, many competing security companies exist to bring crime insurance, street patrols, and criminal investigation to consumers. One such company is Atlas Protection, and this is how I imagine their security contract to look. (I have kept it short and basic; in reality a security contract would read much more in depth, including specific definitions and intricacies of each crime, with much more detail etc.).

Atlas Protection Security Fulfillment

Thank you for choosing Atlas Protection for all of your security needs. If you have purchased crime insurance in a bundle through our partners, Atlantic Insurance or Coastal Insurance, welcome, we appreciate your business.

The Section Your Coverage below will explain what Atlas Protection will provide and protect you against. The Stipulations section will review any actions that would cause us to drop coverage in the event an injured party seeks damages.

Atlas Protection investigates most criminal complaints, however we also partner with Cape Cod Criminology Labs for forensic testing. While we do provide patrols in some areas, those further from our offices will have patrols fulfilled by Northern Watch or Mountain Rangers, depending on your location. Atlas Protection is proud to work in collaboration with New England Security Agency, Corner Cop Security, and Minuteman Arms, among others, to ensure the closest security personnel will always respond in cases of emergency.

Atlas Protection retains Hudson Arbitration to settle disputes with other security companies. We advise customers that although we can appeal decisions made by arbitration, the final results are legally binding and may result in the cancellation of coverage if you are found guilty of a crime, or dismissal of charges if a suspected assailant is found innocent of victimizing you. If you wish to purchase accusation insurance for Atlas Protection to continue to represent you in the event of a conviction, please talk to your Atlas Protection representative.

Your Coverage

If you have purchased a Gold account with us, you are covered for daily patrols, and theft protection of up to $10,000. If you have purchased a business account, please speak to your representative if you have questions about the amount and time of patrols, and area to be patrolled. Your representative will also be able to answer any questions about how much theft protection will be included in your plan.

We strive to accurately investigate, and bring assailants to justice, in order to recover the losses you sustain. It is our guarantee that if we do not bring the perpetrator to justice within one year of a complaint, Atlas Protection will pay out a settlement in accordance to the crime. All of our policies will always cover emergency response–including health emergencies and fires–, investigation, and prosecution to protect you against the following crimes:

  • Assault on your person, a family member, or anyone you are consorting with, whether on someone else’s property or your own.
  • Theft of your property, including items on your person or at home, but not including items left on property that is not your own, unless you were deceived into parting with said property.
  •  Serious threats on your life or property.
  • Trespassing, breaking and entering, home invasion, and forced entry.
  • Murder, rape, and attempted murder/ rape of you, a family member, or cohort. In cases where the policy holder is murdered, the policy will stay active through the investigation and prosecution, at which time the next of kin will be given the option of continuing coverage. If you have purchased life insurance through our affiliates, this will be paid immediately, and not in accordance with any investigation, except in cases of suspected suicide or fraudulent death claims.
  • All other crimes which violate self ownership, and all rights which stem from self ownership. All crimes of aggression, but not defensive action (in cases where policy holder attempts to injure another).

Stipulations: Your Responsibility

I: In addition to protection from crime, Atlas Protection also advocates for you in the event you are accused of a crime.

All crimes and actions which this policy protects against may not be engaged in by the policy holder. In cases when a policy holder commits a crime, including but not limited to assault, theft, trespassing, murder etc., protection will be subject to cancellation after investigations by Atlas Protection and any other security agency have been completed, submitted, and reviewed by Hudson Arbitration and/or another third party arbiter who finds the policy holder guilty.

In such cases Atlas Protection will continue to act as defense in sentencing in order to assure fair treatment, but will yield to arbitration’s final recommendation. It is at Atlas Protection’s sole discretion whether or not coverage will continue after the verdict, and if found guilty, the policy holder may be subject to a surcharge and price increase if you wish to continue your coverage.

Security coverage will never be dropped because of an accusation alone. Though we retain the right to cancel policies in the event of conviction, up until that point, Atlas Protection will represent you against individuals, companies, and other security agencies who accuse you of a crime.

II: In cases where security personal with a valid warrant signed by a third party arbiter seek access to your home, you must allow them inside, in accordance with the warrant. They must however (1) present the warrant, (2) identify themselves, and (3) wait for a representative from our office to validate the agents’ identity as well as the warrant. Without those three steps, you are under no obligation to comply with any security personnel at your home, and Atlas Protection will prosecute the perpetrators if they force entry.

By signing this contract, you agree not to engage in the prohibited violations of others’ rights, and agree that coverage is null and void if you are found guilty after investigation and arbitration has completed.

Buy it on Amazon!

Politics Prevents Progress

Cannabis is legal in a handful of states, and gays can now be equally unequal to everyone else! But the public didn’t want to throw anyone in jail for weed 20 years ago, and where I reside in the northeast hasn’t given a crap about stopping gays from being together for at least as long. So why are these things hailed as political victories?

It takes the government way longer to catch up than the public. And in the mean time gays are marginalized, kids are thrown in jail for possessing a plant, and countless other atrocities occur just waiting for the government to stop being so stupid and repressive.

The government has all the advantages in the public discourse. They can repeal some ridiculous law that THEY put in place, and everyone hails the government as having solved the problem! Are you freaking kidding me? Don’t give the government credit for removing a ridiculous law that they put in place in the first place, causing countless innocent people to be locked in cages!

The government stalls progress, and should never be given credit when they finally catch up to the wishes of the public. The public actually gets along pretty well. And if the government didn’t stand in our way, we would solve these issues way before the idiots on Capital Hill ever get around to it.

Another way of saying WE would solve these problems without government obstruction is to say the market would solve these problems. Who would arrest pot-smokers if not the government? Murderers would still be arrested, because there would be a market for it: we would all want to solve the problem of crime. So we would spend our money, and figure out a fair trial system to make sure we take criminals off the street. Not many people will pay to police “crimes” where these is no victim. There would be no special treatment for government cronies, and enough competing agencies to hold the other ones accountable!

joejarvisedmeme

Having government educate children is like a death sentence for humanity. We can be sure they will never make kids smart enough to know they don’t need government! In this modern era, we can easily figure out how to educate kids for very cheap, and in a way that doesn’t make them hate their lives in a classroom for six hours a day. Humanity is ready for the next generation of education where the possibilities are endless, government is holding us back.

And another thing, the people of America aren’t at war with the people of where-ever. We might not like their government, just like most of us don’t like our own government. But don’t let our scumbags in charge convince us that the people of those countries mirror their scumbags in charge. If anything, we are worse in America, because at least we ELECTED our scum to office. Most of the people we condemn got their leaders by outright force (or by the U.S. installing them)!

So again, without the bumbling government machine, we would already be hanging out with Iraqi’s and North Koreans.

And without the government ruining lives over victimless crimes, and arbitrary laws, we would all be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya.

Government is why we can’t have nice things. End rant.

It Is All About Consent (and not just when it comes to sex)

Is it ever okay to have sex with someone who has not consented? No! Of course not! Essentially everyone agrees that consent is required before having sex, apart from a few rapists who try to justify their aggression by blaming the victim.

Aggression is failure to secure consent before taking an action that damages an individual.

But when we talk about consent in every area of governance, victim blame is rampant, or even the standard.

A business owner consents to you working there, and you consent to doing the job for a prescribed price. Then the government says it is going to take 25-50% at least of what you earn. What, I didn’t agree to that?! “No it is okay, look at all these wonderful services they are providing you!”

No, it is okay for me to rape you, because I am really good at sex! You’ll enjoy it.

I buy a house with cash; it is mine right? Sure, just pay $4,000 to your local government every year. But I didn’t consent to that! “It’s called a social contract, your consent is not required, just being a living breathing human binds you. And anyway, we paved the road in front of your house.”

I took you out on a date and paid for dinner, so you are going to have sex with me. I don’t need your explicit consent, it is implied by your presence, and the fact that you accepted the dinner for which I paid.

If a person does not consent to their labor, their time, or their money being taken, then it should not be taken! It is as simple as that. Why is it so easy to see this when it comes to rape, yet people have no problem ignoring consent in every facet of governance?

No, a majority cannot consent for you. If the whole frat house votes for you to have sex, that does not mean you gave consent. And if an entire country votes that people who smoke weed, or use cannabis as medicine, should be jailed, the victim is still the person using weed! They did not agree to that law, they did not consent to having plants be banned from usage, they did not aggress on anyone by using the plant, and they certainly did not consent to being locked in a cage for violating such rules.

joejarvismeme

Now some would try to flip my argument about consent, and say that if society makes a law, and the law is broken, society is the victim. But this is victim blame. The non-aggressive party is being blamed for the aggressor’s actions. We defend the jailers and condemn the jailed because we’ve been hypnotized to think laws are more important than actual aggression. But if a law is not protecting someone from aggression, it is itself aggression: forcing people to do something, or forcibly prohibiting them from doing it, without gaining their consent.

“Well what if a rapist doesn’t consent to being punished?” He took, he did not ask. Therefore his victim will set the price of what he has taken. Whatever the price–life in prison, death, public flogging–he took that risk by aggressing. If you don’t discuss the terms before the forced transaction, you can’t complain when the bill comes.

Even when you vote for someone, get them elected, and then they pass a law that you must follow, this is still not consent! Because you consented to sex last week, does not mean the man can come in whenever he wants and rape you! Although you agreed to sex earlier, you can withdraw your consent at any time! (Of course this gets into some muddy water, because electing a politician is essentially enabling a rapist).

Saying people deserve to be ruled without consent because of the horrid way they act, is like saying “she deserved to be raped because of the slutty way she dressed”.

And then of course there is the whole, “Well without the government who would keep us safe, build the roads, bomb hospitals in the middle east, teach children, blah, blah, blah.” Yes, and without rapists, how would women ever get pregnant and procreate?

In short, the government is a rapist trying to justify their aggression by blaming the victims: us!

If there is a “rape culture” the government has created it. Anyone against rape cannot possibly be for government without being quite hypocritical. We must consent, or an action is simply unjustified aggression.


Can Individuals Delegate a Right They Don’t Have to the Government? -Video

Amazon.com – Read eBooks using the FREE Kindle Reading App


Jan: Can you properly delegate a right you do not have?

Sen. Inoue: You cannot tax your neighbor, but you can authorize me as a senator to vote for programs that will tax your neighbor…

Jan: Then you think that you can actually delegate a right you do not have? …It is interesting to me how the agent can have more power than the principle. If the principles are the people, and the source [of power] comes from the people, the individuals do not have the right to initiate force against others-

Sen. Inoue: As individuals-

Jan: Well, if they get together then all of the sudden they have the right?

Sen. Inoue: If they authorize the government to do so, yes. If they authorize the government to enter into a war and kill people, that’s a right.

Jan: Where does this right come from if it doesn’t come from the people?

Sen. Inoue: The people through the Constitution.

Jan: The Constitution was made by the people right? So then the people are the source of all legitimate power, so if the people did not have the right to initiate physical force against anybody, then the government cannot have- It seems like there’s a contradiction there as far as if you say that all legitimate governmental power is derived from the people, and you agree that the individual citizens do not have the right to initiate force against other citizens, then it would seem clear that they cannot delegate that right to the government.

Sen. Inoue: Why don’t we just leave it this way, we disagree.

What Jan Helfeld is saying is that if a citizen does not have the right to do something as an individual (like rob their neighbor), then what gives the government the right to rob his neighbor on the citizen’s behalf? If the government derives its power from the people, where does this extra power come from, that the people can never exercise as individuals?

What is so magic about government, that suddenly they can act on an individual’s behalf in a way that the individual could never act on his own? What is so magic about a group of individuals that allows them to rob their neighbor, or initiate force, when said force would always be illegitimate as an individual?

There’s nothing magic about it. It is wrong to initiate force as an individual, and it is also wrong to initiate force as a group, even with approval of the majority. The only legitimate way to take someone’s money (time, labor, wealth) is for them to voluntarily hand it over to you. Otherwise it is theft, even if the government is the robber.

Charity versus taxation is the difference between sex and rape.


Shooting Civilians Not Enough, Cops are Now Shooting Each Other Too

It has been a while since I have posted about the police, but yes, they are still murdering innocent people of all races, ages, and genders. Recently however, police incompetence has taught a few of the officers some lessons of their own. Some cops are getting a nice taste of what they routinely dish out to us peasants.

A police supervisor shot one of his minions who was undercover, supposedly because the supervisor missed a meeting and didn’t know the procedure for the drug bust.

The undercover cop bought $60 worth of drugs. Then he got shot 9 times by his colleague who hadn’t attended the briefing. If this was a citizen who bought $60 worth of drugs, and was shot to death, you would never have heard about it, because he would have “deserved it” according to the media, the police, and most sheeple. Also, the cop who shot him would never have been taken to court.

I’m glad it was a cop that got shot by this other cop and not an innocent person. The cop that got shot had conspired to rob and cage non-violent people. The cop who shot him had conspired to do the same, plus murder a non-violent “criminal”. They are feeling the consequences of their unjust violent actions, (funded by theft in the first place).

This should teach us two things: 1) cops have no value for human life when they can demonize their non-violent target as a druggy, 2) even if cops did care about people, and even if they only policed crimes with victims, they are often too incompetent to properly deliver the service.

To prove this point, I direct your attention to exhibit A- a case where the police were actually attempting to do their job; investigating a report of a suspicious person and possible break-in.

A man shot by police officers who went to the wrong Atlanta house ran bleeding outside where a neighbor heard him asking, “Why did they come in my house? Why did they shoot me? Why did they shoot my dog?”

It happened Monday night when officers arrived at the wrong Atlanta address after a report of suspicious activity, shot homeowner Christopher McKinley, killed his dog and “likely” shot a fellow officer, leaving him seriously wounded, authorities said Tuesday.

The most tragic part of this story is that they killed a nice, happy, family pet for no reason. Even if they had responded to the right house, did they think the dog had broken in? What is up with police shooting dogs for no reason? This should really scare people if the nature of those who go into police work enjoy killing innocent animals, just like serial killers.

The innocent man police shot is lucky to be alive, and the only consolation is that at least one of the officers knows how his victims feel after being shot by a fellow officer.

We have trigger happy sociopaths running around and telling us they are keeping us safe, but when they are called to actually do their job, they can’t even get the right house, resulting in the death of a pet, and attempted murder of the innocent homeowner. And even if it was the right house, they still would have killed the victims’ pet, and still gone in trigger-happy guns blazing for no reason.

Yet, if we suggest reform to the police system, we are labelled cop-haters by these thugs and their brainwashed supporters. I believe in the free market, so there will be protection and crime investigation if the market (the consumer) demands it. I do not need my money stolen to provide me this service–especially when the “service” endangers me more than the criminals they “protect” me from.

We need to open policing up to competition by abolishing all state monopolies on crime prevention and investigation, which includes government contracting to a private company. We need to be able to remove our money from bad agencies, and give it to good ones. Right now, the police who commit these atrocities are not properly punished, nor are the agencies defunded which hired the incompetent at best, possibly sociopathic officers.

At least when cops get shot by other cops, they are feeling the consequences of their unjust actions for once.

      

Government is Horrible at Divvying Resources

Resources are limited, this is true. Even when creating wealth, such as growing a garden, it requires the resources of land, water, and sun. It does not follow, however, that the state is necessary to divvy up these resources appropriately. To put it another way, there is no evidence to suggest force is the best way to decide where resources will go.

I bring this up because I’ve heard people say we need a government because land, water, oil, etc. are all to some degree scarce resources, meaning they are limited. But why on earth would anyone think the government will be a proper arbiter or these resources?

joejarvisoilmeme

Just look at oil. This is a scarce resource, that many people want and need for industry. Are the governments of the world doing a good job splitting that resource? No, they spend more money fighting wars over oil than the actual oil is worth, and that is before we even place a value on human life lost! The only reason governments can spend more wealth obtaining a resource than it is worth, is because the wealth they spend is forcefully taken by them in the form of taxes!

[Fun Fact: there is enough habitable land on Earth for every person alive to own over two acres.]

A company that needs to turn a profit on the other hand, could not spend more obtaining the resource than it is worth. They cannot spend $1 billion mining gold if the amount of gold they mine can only be sold for half a billion dollars. But governments spend far more on wars to obtain land and oil than the total amount of production that said land or oil could sustain.

So if no one was allowed to rob us, including government, then these issues would have to be solved in a mutually beneficial way. In order to obtain oil, we would have to pay the price asked, or go elsewhere. Elsewhere would include solar, wind, hydro, and other forms of creating electricity. The government has helped keep us in the stone age of fossil fuel because they rob us to obtain the oil, then rob us to subsidize the oil, and keep the shelf price of it low enough so that we don’t bother seriously looking into alternative fuels.

But if we were not robbed by the government, that wealth would stay in our hands, and we would be able to spend that wealth in peaceful ways that create more wealth. Instead, government spends it on murder and destruction.

And somehow people still think government is the best arbiter of limited resources? They just don’t know any better alternatives. That is why they should read my fiction novel Anarchy in New England, in order to explore a world where coercion is never okay, and mutual benefit has monumentally raised the standard of living.

Interview on “Under the Gun” Talking About PorcFest

This is a recording from “Under the Gun” from a few weeks ago, where we discuss PorcFest, the Porcupine Freedom Festival. We talk about freedom in the true sense, where you not only care about your own freedom, but you respect others’ freedom as well. The only line that is drawn, is when someone is victimized. We also discuss the tax men that showed up at PorcFest, and how at the end of the day, everything the government does is backed only by a gun to our heads.


Emails: Debating Limited versus No Government

Limited Gov Guy: I was arguing with [my girlfriend] last night about the Affordable Care Act and how it is not the government’s place to take care of sick people. I argued instead that the government is mainly there, to plagiarize Milton Friedman’s words, for the role of enforcing contracts between individuals and punishing individuals who violate others’ rights.

If you accept that (I know you might not), then consider this:
In the following scenarios, a citizen’s right to life is threatened by three different assailants.
– If an individual were to assault someone on the street for no reason, I would want the government to imprison that individual.
– If a wild animal were to attack someone unprovoked, I would want the government to contain or destroy that animal.
– If a bacteria infects someone and starts to kill them, then why should not the government take actions against that bacteria to protect the citizen’s right to life?
That’s what [my girlfriend] said to me, and I had no response.
I know it’s wrong, but I don’t know why.
Thoughts?

Free Association Man: If an individual were to assault….. but this doesn’t mean the gov can force you to enter into a contract with a body guard.

If a wild animal were to attack… but this doesn’t mean the gov can force you to enter into a contract with an animal trainer.

If a bacteria infects… but this doesn’t mean the gov can force you into a contract with a health insurance company….

BTW: We have the CDC, NIH, and the FDA already charged with viral and bacterial defenses for the population.

The pain for the ACA is all back-loaded to 2017. Mr. Obama says the ACA is “working” because more people have health insurance. But that’s because the gov is subsidizing enrollments. This is why a SCOTUS decision against subsidies would have killed the ACA. The subsidies expire, penalties begin, and all the new taxes (not fees…thank-you Chief Justice Roberts), start Jan 1 2017.

Example: The tuition at my school is 10K. Now lets mandate that every kid on the Cape has to enroll in my school. Lets further mandate that my school has to cover all sorts of new services (health clinics, free breakfast, psych counseling…) But not-to-worry.. the tuition is subsidized so that 10K tuition will only cost you 2K and you get all these great new services. What do you know?? Enrollment is booming at my school! What will the tuition bill be in 2017 when the subsidies expire? Parents are going to be wishing for the good-old-days when they weren’t mandated to enroll and the tuition was only 10K. This is why most analyst say that the ACA is not sustainable after the subsidies expire. (google: ACA-subsidies-expiration). Johnathan Gruber – the main architect of the ACA – said that the ACA is not sustainable and called the American people “stupid” for not seeing this (http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/obama-adviser-jonathan-gruber-in-2009-obamacare-will-not-be-affordable/).  And where will Mr. Obama be in 2017? Playing golf.


Economics Guy: In all those cases I want to be my own first line of defense.  If an attacker or an animal survives my defense (which can include nearby citizens), then the government (or a private entity that provides a similar service) can take appropriate action.
If I decide that I need help with an illness, I have the option to contract for that help with whomever I think can help me.  In my lifetime this is how it was.  You got sick, if you needed to see a doctor you paid him.  You only paid for what you needed.  Medical care was less costly before the government got involved.  (Everything was.  More on that to follow.)
It might seem like a good idea to have government agencies trying to identify and contain disease in general, and maybe it is.  The problem is that nobody ever asks “What will this cost?”  The other problem is that every government program expands and becomes a horribly inefficient bureaucracy.  The cost thing might sound callous, but it is an unfortunate reality.  Products and services are not free.  Somebody must produce products and services and that somebody wants something in return.
Economics 101:
Wealth is created, it is not distributed from some pre-existing stash.
Wealth is the availability of a standard of living higher than naked, alone and afraid, struggling to survive 24/7.
You want to eat?  Go find some berries, pick them, chew them and digest them.  You just produced one meal.
You want to get out of the rain?  Find a cave and defend it against the bear that comes looking for a den and a non-berry meal.  You just produced shelter.
You want a companion?  You have to offer her a better deal than the one she has.  Better companionship or more food or more comfortable shelter.
You see where this is going.  People enter into agreements to produce for each other.  The standard of living increases.  Infrastructure gets created.  It is all supported entirely by people who produce more than they consume.
Fast forward to 1776.  The colonists decide they are not happy with the British government.  They decide to create their own.  There are big government guys and small government guys.  We end up with a republic with a constitution that limits the federal government to very specific roles.  The government needs some amount of revenue.  It comes from taxes.  Taxes are the taking of some of the produce of the producers.  Almost everybody is on board with some amount of government and therefore taxes.  Government produced a producer-friendly environment the cost of which is taxes.
But the government starts to grow.  There are government people who keep thinking of new things the government can do.  It can do them because it can take from the current producers and borrow against what it will take from future producers.  Few in government ever ask if the government should do these things.  It is easy to spend other peoples money.  Some people like some of the things government does, other people like other things the government does, almost nobody likes all the things government does.  If you are a net producer you pay for it anyway.
How can we tell if we are producers?  Don’t government employees produce something?  Often government employees produce things.  Teachers teach, firefighters fight fires, researchers conduct research etc.  The litmus test is this:  Would a free market pay them to do what they do and how much?  Some people have always been willing to trade what they produce for what a teacher produces, or what a blacksmith produces or what a composer produces.  Can an artist produce enough art in a free market to live comfortably?  Good for him!  The list is endless.
But who will trade their produce for an IRS audit or for the NSA to spy on them?  Or for a bureaucrat to give some of their produce to a non-producer who could produce?
Today’s government is so bloated with bureaucracy that most of what producers produce goes to supporting the non-producing bureaucrats.  It is not that they don’t do what they are hired to do, it is that they shouldn’t have been hired to do it in the first place.  To make matters worse much of what bureaucrats do, make it harder for producers to produce.
Economics 102:
Economics is the study of incentives.
Costs rise or fall to match the supply with the demand.
When something costs less the market wants more of it.  When something costs more the market wants less of it.
Cost in this case is not just part of your produce.  It can be your freedom or your state of well being or pretty much anything you care about.
If you attend an event with an open bar you might drink more because you don’t have to trade your produce for it, your host has decided to trade his produce for your drink.  Or you might drink less because you don’t want to take advantage of your host.  In this case your cost is the idea that you are taking advantage of your host and that is a higher cost to you than your produce.
Our government routinely hides the true cost of things from us.  Piles and piles of red tape and taxes drive costs up while subsidies, tax breaks and special treatment drive costs down, sometimes on the same product.
Insurance was invented as a way to share economic risk.  A group of people who all face a more or less similar level of economic risk agree to create a pool of money to be paid out to those members who have an actual loss.  This works if the level of risk is relatively low over the life of the agreement.  Homeowners insurance is a good example.  You can’t afford to lose your $250K house and neither can most people so you all pay $500 a year to the insurance company who provides (produces) the organization to collect the pool and investigate and pay claims.  They probably get about 8% of the pool each year for this service, and everybody is happy.  It works because everybody faces about the same risk which is low, the incentives to try and cheat are small and the pool can pay the actual costs with enough left over for the insurance company to get its cut.
Health insurance is different.  Risk is affected by your lifestyle, your age and your genes.  Young, clean-living, hardy specimens don’t want to share the risk with broken-down old drug addicts.  Paying an insurance company $54 so they will pay for your $50 doctor visit doesn’t make a lot of sense.  A 60 year old man paying an insurance company for pre-natal care makes no sense at all.
Government medical care makes medical care look free or low cost.  When things cost less, people want more.  When demand goes up, actual costs (which are hidden from the consumer) go up.  This is why I said earlier that everything costs more when the government gets involved.  They can re-distribute the costs but they can’t make them go away.
The lowest possible costs and the most efficient solutions occur in a well informed, truly free market.  A true free market has never existed in America, but we were a lot closer in the past.
Obamacare (and every other government program) will benefit some people at the expense of many others.  This is socialism.  There is a limit to how much socialism we can afford.  There is no limit to how much wealth we can create.  Poor people in America today live better than kings and queens of yesterday.
Freedom creates wealth.  Socialism destroys wealth.
The bottom line: There are few if any things the government does that can’t be done better at lower cost by the free market.  (The real free market, not the government manipulated “free” market.)

Scary Anarchist:Allow me to pontificate.

1. I’d much rather mitigate risk from criminals, animals, nature by voluntarily entering into contracts with privatized for profit agencies than to be forced into conditions imposed by government.

2. “Where do you find these angels to run government.” Milton Friedman.


Limited Gov Guy:These are all excellent points, but I think I should have specified.

I am attempting to figure things out theoretically, in a vacuum of sorts, where the only considerations are individual freedoms versus collective security.
Many of your arguments are based on the impracticality and budgetary butchery of government work. I agree with all of these ideas, and perhaps they are your sole reasons for opposing the ACA.
But imagine a world in which the government could provide such services (police, corrections facilities, healthcare — all to protect the citizen’s right to life) just as efficiently as the private sector.
In this scenario, with numbers aside and the only factors being individual freedoms versus collective security, where do you draw the line?
I would be willing to pay taxes for the government to protect the public from criminals and wild animals, but not for them to protect us from disease.
The more I think about it, the more inconsistent it seems. Why do I pick and choose?
It seems the only reasonable progression is that government provides ALL services or NONE of them…

Economics Guy: Correct!  But does everybody need or want all the same services?  The only way government can provide anything at all is to first take it from somebody else.  If everybody wanted the exact same thing from government, and if government were efficient and had no agenda of its own, then it may indeed be the best way to provide those things.

But none of those things are true.

[My town] provides water and sewer service, collects the trash, has a school system, plows the roads, collects leaves in the fall, has curbside recycling, maintains parks and athletic fields and some other stuff.  Hopedale residents pay for this in the form of property taxes, which are high.  If you have a small lot, lots of kids, plenty of money and aren’t very handy then this is a good deal.  If you have a big lot that would support a septic system and a well, don’t generate a lot of trash, have no kids, don’t use the park and dump your leaves in the corner of your own property then you are getting screwed.  Your only option is to move.  If you stay in [my town] you are paying for stuff you don’t need or want.
On the federal level it is even worse, there are zillions of government programs that almost nobody would voluntarily support, and the option to move is more or less unrealistic.  So I come down on the side of very limited / no government.  This will preserve my freedom and a market WILL develop to serve people who want a higher level of service.

Joe Jarvis: I agree, it is much easier to consistently argue from the no government perspective. Then, it is a simple matter of not being robbed (in the form of taxes). Healthcare would be wrong, not necessarily because of what was provided, but because it was done by force. This is akin to how charity is no longer charity when you steal someone else’s money to donate.

Now our idea of limited government would be protection from foreign invaders essentially, and protection from being victimized by fellow citizens. In that sense the argument would be, if the USA is going to declare 3 million square miles “theirs,” then at least they have the responsibility to repel hordes and make sure they foster a safe environment within. But even this stands on shaky ground, because A) how do you pay for it without theft which is wrong, and B) how is it legitimate to claim land people already own, live on, work etc.?

If the answer to A is competing government agencies which you can defund by patronizing another one, that would seem to no longer fall under the definition of government; it would be more like a business. Yet that is exactly what would deliver the best results, as every other sector of the free market.

The competing agencies could team up in the event of a larger outside threat. Think of if every state’s police and national guard were privatized, had to find investors to buy back their equipment, and rebate the money to the taxpayers. Then they could start their own agencies, and the ones who provide a good enough service in the free market would still exist. The Colorado State Police, from what I hear, would do quite fine as a private company, due to the high quality service they provide to the public. People would still voluntarily pay for their policing activities, be it business owners, individuals, or road owners, because there is value in the product.
But I guess I am getting a bit off topic.

Scary Anarchist:Here’s a good barometer if you choose to put all other aspects aside.

Is it voluntary?

If taxes were voluntary would anybody pay them? If social security were voluntary only those who wanted it could CHOOSE to partake and pay into the system. What’s wrong with that? If police “protection” were optional, could I opt out of the system and provide my own protection? In fact isn’t this what we call privatization? Much of what we are subject to by govt. is deemed a “collective right” thus justifying it as a NON-voluntary system. If the system were option many who make their living off of thieving and controlling you and I would be out of a job. But what is a collective but a collection of individuals. I am an individual not a collective, who has different dreams, fears, hopes, wants, needs, then the next. The litmus test of all political theory for the libertarian minded is the championing of voluntary transactions and maximum individual liberty while upholding the non-aggression principal (NAP). Case and point: isn’t it good if we’re all forced to get immunization to keep deadly disease at bay (which beckons the question how are they going to force this)? This may be true but I would say NEGATIVE. Cannot subject individual liberty to this supposed “need” of the collective. If it’s truly a good idea than the market will uphold it. What is “the market” you say…. much to learn you have young Padoine!


Limited Gov Guy: I’m beginning to think that government should exert no control outside of a few necessary evils:
1) The Feds should defend our borders from other nations, and have almost no influence on American citizens themselves. This would require a federal tax, unfortunately. However, in order to preserve the freedoms inside our borders, I think I could bear a defense tax.
2) The States/counties/towns should deal with violations of rights among their residents. If one violates another’s rights to life or property (which I think are the two basic rights from which all others stem), then the government has a court system and a police force to deal with him. I also think that, at this lower level, government could own land for the sole purpose of selling it to any citizen who wanted it.
3) All else would be left to the free market.
I can’t say I completely buy into the anarchist mindset, even though I really enjoyed the ideas in Joey’s Anarchy in New England.
1) I’m not sure the private arbitration agencies could be trusted to agree upon verdicts impartially. I understand the idea that business ethics reviews would destroy such agencies if they made unjust rulings, but they might not all adhere to the same standards. What if there was a Muslim-run arbitration agency ruled that a thief ought to be beheaded?
2) And lastly, I think the lower-level government would have to own land and sell it to citizens. Otherwise, there would be no legitimacy to land ownership. Anybody could claim as much as they wanted, as long as they had more guns than the next guy.
Could the free market take care of such things?

Joe Jarvis: Yes, I believe the free market would take care of these things better than the government can. Competition and the profit motive are what will allow for this, while monopolies, including one on defense and conflict resolution, means no alternatives.

1) Currently Muslim run Governments dictate that thieves be beheaded (or witches, or woman drivers). An arbitration agency however would be competing with other ones. If I was a thief, and have representation, then it is likely that a Muslim agency would adjust their sentences to themselves avoid action against them. However if an entire region (customers) agreed thieves should be beheaded, the punishment would persist.
But the profit motive and competition means a draconian agency would have to justify their existence to customers, versus forcing customers to fund their “service” (the government). The fact is our current system is not impartial, and states/ towns do not have the same standards. An ounce of weed has landed people with life sentences in some states, while in MA it is a $100 fine. Any agency that tried to jail a man for life for possession of a plant would be opening a can of worms that would threaten their profits, and open up competition for rival, less crazy agencies.
And everyone would save money because a crime would require a victim. Currently the government steals our money, and labels things crimes, even if there is no victim. We are forced to pay to lock up non-violent drug offenders. But without government monopolizing security, consumers would balance service with cost. The best service (as decided by the consumers, who in a truly free market would also necessarily be producers) for the lowest cost would win out. War has high costs, and so does dishing out draconian sentences that people (your customers, or customers of rival agencies) will protest.
Is it possible for injustices to happen? Of course. But based on what we know about market forces, we have to assume the injustices would be fewer, farther between, and more easily righted outside of monopoly control.
And finally, we cannot take the best example of government, and act like all governments will be that way. Cliche, but look what Stalin, Hitler, and Mao’s governments did. Absolutely no private agency could afford to do that, get nearly as far, or survive the public backlash.
2) Land ownership is indeed important, and I think the structure would be slightly different without government, but no less just. First off, there is no private ownership of land currently. We rent it from local governments; the rent is called Property Tax. If you don’t pay your rent (property tax), they will eventually confiscate the land from you. The Feds can also confiscate your land according to the Constitution, and give you what they decide is the market price. How absurd: the market price is whatever I want to sell the land for. If I don’t want to sell, the price might go through the roof. If you want occupied/ owned land, pay for it what the owner asks, or move on.
So that is the price we pay for allowing government to control land ownership. Currently, the guys with the most guns indeed claim the most land. America claims 3 million square miles officially, and another 54 million square miles unofficially. I think I will trust the market to ensure that at least more than a few hundred governments own all the land on Earth.
It is not legitimate to claim land you do not use. I cannot say for sure how this would go down, as it would be different in different regions, however the consumers would still decide on what constitutes land ownership, just as they would dictate the laws through patronizing a security company that shares their values. This would give us true votes (with dollars) on what laws exist, as opposed to mob rule law as it currently stands.
If I owned a security company, I would agree to protect land that people use and/or improve. If you have a house, and a fence around your property that no neighbors dispute, then it is easy: register with your security company the land you want them to protect. If anyone else claims it, they will legitimize the fact that it is yours. Same if you build a factory: it does not magically belong to the workers. Absentee land ownership would be legitimate as long as his capital paid for the improvements on the land.
Does a random tree in the forest belong to you? No. But when you cut down the tree, mill the wood, and make a bar out of the tree, the bar belongs to you. Even if you cut down the tree and split it into logs, they belong to you. The berries on the bush belong to you once you pick them. And an unoccupied piece of land belongs to you if you add value by manipulating the natural resources.
Something not legitimate would be claiming Isolation Mountain as your own. No security company would agree to protect that land as yours, because it would threaten their public perception, and profits. In fact multiple New England agencies might even get together, and decide on large swaths of land they will never register to a single owner (in order to avoid later conflict, and thus save money). You could still go out and build a hut in the forest, grow a garden and in my opinion that would make the land your own.
Land ownership, in that sense, predates humans. Wolves understand the invading party to be in the wrong, and that invasion will most likely lead to mutual destruction, with a slightly higher possibility of the owner coming out on top, due to incentives to protect ones own property. It is possible, though less probable, the invading wolves win the land. But as I’ve already noted, the American wolf pack has already stolen your land. So it is a matter of collective ownership of all 3 million square miles (if you agree not to threaten the alfa male, you might be allowed to live on THEIR land for a relatively low cost, with some benefits, including other wolf packs not invading your land, but with the very distinct possibility of your own wolf pack cannibalizing you).
But you couldn’t simply claim an area you do not use as your own because: A) it would require the personel to protect it, in which case, you are adding value in a sense (providing jobs, and therefore using/ occupying the land). or B) if there are already people on the land, this is aggression on their property which the owner’s security should protect, and if you impose your will or take a tax from the people within the land your claim, you have just created a government.
The subject of land ownership really requires a book, but perhaps I will try to tackle it in a post. One thing I am sure of however, is that the free market will make for better rules of private ownership of land than the current monopoly provides.