The Next Evolution of Human Organization is Voluntary Association

Governments are the new monarchs. Time to end the coercive control of one group of people over another. Time to make society and governance voluntary.

Children Need to be Taught the Real History of the World

Why An Ideal Society Would be Based on Consent
By Joe Jarvis – September 14, 2018

… A society based on consent is ideal because:

  1. It is prosperous. You are free to keep the products of your labor. You may not steal what someone else has produced. This provides an incentive to produce, and trade the excess, enriching all of society.
  2. It is peaceful. You are free to defend yourself from any aggressors. This makes a peaceful society because everyone understands the consequences of victimizing others.
  3. It is fair. You cannot have your property taken without your consent. You cannot be forced to labor for another without your agreement.
  4. There is no coercion. You are free to associate or disassociate with whomever you wish. No one can force you to participate in something you find objectionable. No one can prevent you from participating in anything that doesn’t hurt others.
  5. You are free. Without a victim, there is no crime. If what you do isn’t hurting anyone, no one can stop you from doing it. The ultimate freedom of expression.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

Read More: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/why-an-ideal-society-would-be-based-on-consent/

Men Against the State: The Expositers of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908
James J. Martin06/13/1970

America was home to the first full-blown movement of individualist anarchists in the 19th and early 20th century. The author of this book on the topic adds the adjective “individualist” to distinguish them from socialists. They were champions of liberty, and, yes, they were as quirky as any movement of this sort might be. But they made mighty contributions to the history of ideas, and this book explains those contributions and the minds behind them.

The names are tragically lost to history: Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, J.K. Ingalls, among many others. They were thinkers and activists, not mere protesters or political dissidents. They had a positive agenda centered on the confidence that whatever kind of world would emerge without a state, it would be a better world than the one the state made.

The author explains that “the communist anarchists rejected private property, and taught the ideal of the collective autonomous commune. A portion of their number advocated the overthrow of the State by violence. The individualist anarchists held that the collective society in any form was an impossibility without the eventuality of authoritarianism, and ultimately, totalitarianism, and adhered resolutely to the concept of private property insofar as the term could be defined as the total product of a given individual’s labor, but not more broadly than this.”

“They abandoned the idea of an equalitarian utopia, and worked for a world free from arbitrary restrictions on opportunity and legal privilege, which breakdowns they claimed ‘laissez faire’ really produced. No other radical group denounced the prevailing system more vigorously than the spokesmen for individualist anarchism.”

James J. Martin wrote a book for the ages in 1952, a survey that is indispensable for anyone interested in the roots of modern libertarian thought. You will find these roots not in the postwar “conservatism” of the Buckley movement but much further back.

Read More: https://mises.org/library/men-against-state-expositers-individualist-anarchism-america-1827-1908

The US Government Claims Ownership Over Everything, Even Our Lives

“To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize?”

Declaration of independence Deplorables?

“As ye sow…” by Robert Gore

The United States’ founding documents pay tribute to individual rights and private properly. Some of the founders may have thought they were establishing a government subordinated to protection of individual rights, which would have been an historical first. However, none thought such a government would be easy to maintain, and their fears were borne out.

The US government places prominently on the inglorious list of governments claiming ownership over everything within their dominion, defined as any place where they can exercise their coercive power.

To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize? The income tax gives it first claim on income. No real estate is exempt from eminent domain. Intellectual property claims are at the sufferance of the patent, trademark, and copyright authorities. Financial assets held within the banking system can be “bailed in,” and plans are afoot to ban cash. The already extensive range of assets subjected to civil asset forfeiture continues to expand. More ominously, assets can be seized from parties never adjudicated guilty. Conscription grants to the government the lives of the conscripted. The US government is no exception to the general rule, nothing is inviolate expect perhaps a person’s thoughts, and undoubtedly it’s working on that.

Individuals who assert the right to initiate aggression against whomever they choose are philosophically unhinged, candidates for an asylum or a penitentiary. Rejecting the first principle that must guide human interaction—that no one may rightfully initiate force against another person—such individuals have no rational foundation for their thoughts or actions. The “garbage in” of their philosophical premises produces “garbage out” emotional states, mental processes, and ultimately, lives. Having abandoned reason for coercion and violence, reality becomes a chaotic, incomprehensible void.

Governments’ coercive power allow them to take: might makes right. A philosophy that recognized a right of some individuals to steal from others fails on first principles; there is no logical distinction possible between the privileged and the subjugated. Does the aggregation of individuals into a unit which calling itself a government give them a right which none of them have individually? One could say that the aggregate was for the protection of its constituents’ persons, property, and rights, but a government so limited is acting as their constituents’ subordinate agent, exercising and enhancing their right of self-defense. Efforts have been made, notably the American experiment, but no government has ever been restricted in this manner.

Read More: straightlinelogic.com/2017/02/11/as-ye-sow-by-robert-gore/