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

Open Borders Libertarians are Globalist Pawns

His idea that a border is the initiation of violence is assuming it’s initiating violence to have defensive protection of your people, resources and interests.

If only we had a Utopian world where everyone sought to share and contribute equally…. but with the welfare state and economic realities like labor availability versus wages, it’s just as easy to see illegal residents as having initiated violence against me, by breaking our laws to unlawfully break our borders and take our resources.

The argument is ridiculous. Do you call locking your door at night an initiation of violence against the people that would illegally enter and take your possessions or rape your wife or daughter?

As a libertarian you still contribute to a greater organization of people that we call our society, and involves government even if you want to call it another name, there is some organization for common defense required in any organization of people. It’s not violence to defend what you have built and the resources you’ve collected.

The people entering our country illegally are not here to share their resources, they’re here to take our resources. That, in itself violates the NAP.