Law and Freedom

Philosophical ramblings




Home



Conversations


Your sense of living and your world view was shaped by something or someone. So, you do live by a law, the Golden Rule, right?

Free thinking people abhor monopoly and like diversity. Thus, no matter what "law" they were raised in, they simply gather, in their entire life time, various laws of various points of view (/ cultures). Monopolistic forces create laws as a result of their nightmares and then force them on everybody.

Let me state what freedom means: freedom is the ability to say "No" and have that decision respected. Very simple!

Still, I am not one who believes that lack of force is the goal of freedom. That would be an illusion. Force is a law of Nature. Everything alive fights for survival. The only thing that matters in Life is diversity. That is how Life survives since it has no brain and thus has no knowledge of what is... best / right.

Thus, freedom is something which is born from fight and from diversity, and is in absolute contrast with monopoly. Monopoly is the death of Life.



Are states evil?

Some people point out that there is a clear difference between a democratic state and a fascist one, and that without democracy we could live under fascism.

We could, but that only shows that those people are comparing two evils, not proving that democracy is good.

In analyzing the differences between a democratic and a fascist state, the most relevant distinction is that although a democracy uses force to control the masses of people, little violence is actually used.

Violence, here, means the generalization of the principle "guilty until proven innocent", and (usually) only then followed by physical violence.

Instead, insidious, encroaching behavior is the norm because this line of action gets people used with slowly loosing their freedoms and drives them to think that slavery is normal and expectable.

In contrast, fascist states use violence as the norm.

The reason why violence has a worse outcome than mere force is that violent conflicts kill people who could otherwise contribute to the change of the society. Even if people are controlled, they can still make more changes than corpses can.

The difference between the two is not in their kind of actions, but in the way they exert control over people, with democracy allowing leaders to manifest their control to the highest degree without being generally tagged as "must-die" by the people they control.

If you say that all we need is honest politicians, I have to tell you that fantasy and reality are two different things. In reality, honest men do not want / need to control the lives of other people and thusly they will never become the politicians who run states.



Who would exert control?

That is what most people ask when an anarcho-capitalist tells them there must be no state in order to have a prosperous society.

Control of what? What do you, personally, need to control? Do you need approval to eat, to wash, to sleep? What do you need to control for? Why do you need to have written on a piece of paper what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do? Why can't you use common sense to think things through?

If you don't have any personal needs to control others, why do you let others tell you that control of people is necessary? Necessary for what? Obviously, control of people is necessary for them to maintain control, control of you, control of your family and friends.

So, you believe criminals must be controlled, right? Then, if you consider yourself a honest man, why don't you get together with people like yourself and make an organization which teaches others about right and wrong, ON YOUR MONEY? Why do you believe theft (through taxation) and control are necessary? Is it because you know that otherwise nobody would care about your opinions, and therefore you need to force people to obey you?

Why don't you make an organization which, based on reputation, makes people voluntarily pay for private justice? Just like they would go to the market, they would buy justice. Ah, but you have been told that you can't buy justice! Why not? If money is not the drive of justice, what is? Is it a vote? A vote for an individual who will be bought by criminals, by groups of interest which will make laws in their interest (and make you believe it's in your interest)? You can buy justice, others can buy justice. It's a tie, it's a balance.

Why would you want to cast a paper vote when you could take your money and go shop for every service you need? Vote with your money! And if you believe private business would not do such and such thing, why don't you do it? Why would you want to make other people pay (by robbing them through taxes) for what you think is "right"?

You think that private justice would only mean there would various hitmen, right? But how about this: you get together with your honest buddies and create an insurance for justice. No theft through taxes, just insurance. Then, you make sure that when your clients need justice, you keep them satisfied by providing them with what they need: compensation.

So, the other party from a dispute would, perhaps, use another private justice organization. Obviously, your organization would have to settle with the other organization in a way which keeps both parties satisfied. If you can't reach an agreement, you can go beat each other up and see who's stronger. Of course, this would mean that you would have to pay dearly, especially if you lose. It would also mean that you would lose business because your other clients (current or future) would see that you are unable to provide justice. Alternatively, you could just close that particular case and tell your client that you can't solve his case. It's that client's decision if he would continue to use your justice services or not, for other potential problems.

But in reality, there would be a clear separation between private courts of law and private enforcement agencies, exactly because enforcement of decisions, when there is a disagreement, could mean losing business. So, in fact, the private court of law of each party involved in a conflict can issue a decision which is opposite to the decision of the other court. However, the more decisions a reputable private court of law makes in stark contrast to the decisions of other reputable private courts of law, the more business it would lose, until it would no longer receive enough business to sustain itself.

Why would such private courts lose businesses? Because you could start a newspaper and tell the world about their constantly wrong decisions.

So far, this means nothing. It's disagreement, it's losing business. What really matters is the next step: would anybody, any enforcement agency, enforce the opposite decisions of the two private courts of law? Anybody could, just like anybody can do what they want under state provided justice. The problem, in both cases, is the cost of enforcement.

In the case of the state provided justice, if someone would do something which is against the pleasure of the state, the state would send its people to force the rebels pay (through whatever means).

In the case of two private enforcement agencies, each agency would be faced with the costs of a possible physical fight and also with losing future business. Most people don't like physical violence, so they would avoid those who use it.

Such private enforcement agencies would also lose their reputation in their dealings with private courts of law. You see, there is a strong connection between private courts of law and private enforcement agencies. Each group depends on the other for completing the act of justice. A reputable private enforcement agency would never enforce the decisions of a private court of law it doesn't trust.

You might be concerned that such private courts of law and enforcement agencies would be too many and too small to prove effective. But think of the few huge corporations which sell all kind of things throughout the world. They are few and they are huge because this is how the laws of Nature work: very few people will always be incredibly better experts at various things than most people are. This is why there would be a few huge international private courts of law and enforcement agencies.

Trust is what binds together people and businesses. This is how justice can be bought, not in the sense of an imbalance among people who need justice, but in the sense of equilibrium of power among those who provide justice, and thus a balance among the people who need it.

No matter about what situation you think that "private business can't do this, so we need someone to rob people and provide other people this and that", think like this instead "I'll get together with my honest buddies and build a reputable organization which would receive either business or charity funding, and we would provide people with what others don't. We will not rob people of their money and freedom, we will not rape the minds of their children to make them obey us, we will not kill those who do not obey our system and instead make their own system which doesn't rob, rape or murder".

Do you now know that robbing people (through taxation) of half of what they produce, raping the minds of millions of children to make them obey the system, and killing those who defend their life against theft and rape, is not the path to a prosperous society?



How would a private jurisdiction be functionally different than the current states?

The honest ones would charge rent (not tax a percentage), that is, a flat rent depending on the market value of the rented space. Because of this the owners of the jurisdiction would be limited in what they can do for and against the renters, they would not interfere with every aspect of the renters' lives and would not keep track of their finances, and this would keep them honest.

Why a state is a criminal:

  • It tracks people's finances and activities in order to be able to take a percentage of people's wealth.

  • It takes money from people who did no crimes, in order to justify going after criminals.

  • If finances it's machinations with stolen money. "Stolen" as in taken without consent, under threat of punishment; or if you want, with the same consent as in blackmail.



Aren't you glad that everyone doesn't live in utter disregard of law?

I, for one, am sad that most people have respect for institutionalized (= monopolistic) law.



If there was no law, what would keep the thugs from running the whole country?

The thing with violence is that it works both ways. The answer is like this: if there would be no institutionalized justice, there could be:

  • Some dudes would monopolize justice and would make anyone pay for it whether they like or not. These dudes are know as "The State".

  • Various private ventures would try to provide services known as private justice.

To tell the truth, I was unable to understand how this would work. I could not figure out how private justice could work. But, hey, when I realized that it was not my responsibility to make it work, I realized that it would actually work because there are lots of people around. I said to myself: "dude, obviously you can't make plans for how the society should work since the society is not in your head, but is out there and formed from lots and lots and lots of real people who can (and do) make choices regardless of what you think".

Certainly, there are lots of sheep who would not fight for their lives, but there are also lots of people who would take the opportunity and provide arbitration and enforcement even for these people.

Such business men would be very good at their job, but they would be in the business of making a profit and thus they would know when to cut their losses. This means that private justice would work only where a profit could be made. Certainly, nothing would stop people to put together some money and hire private law enforcement agencies to fight some public cause (like catching some serial killer). However, there is obviously a profit to be made by the people who pay, since the killer actually causes damage to their property.

Monopolistic justice means lack of change, lack of adaptation, and therefore means death. Life prefers to live.

Institutionalized justice actually triples the costs: once for creating, maintaining and enforcing the laws, and once for fighting those people who are criminals (according to the monopolistic laws). On top of this, they also have to fight the real criminals, those who are criminals in the view of any human with common sense.

In the absence of institutionalized justice, there would be ways to make a profit by providing private arbitration and private enforcement of either arbitration resolutions or of personal choice.



Does anarchy mean lack of law and chaos?

A common dictionary says:

  • Anarchism = The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

  • Anarchy = Absence of any form of political authority.

As you see, there is no such thing as "absence of law". An anarchist, and particularly an anarcho-capitalist, does not associate anarchy / anarchism with chaos, but with the definitions given above. Also, since there already is a word for chaos (that would be "chaos"), why hijack the word "anarchy" to define the same thing?



Would you like to live in a place where dueling in the streets with thugs was the only remedy to disputes? That is the law of the jungle! I wouldn't like that.

If you would stop for a moment and think at the jungle, you would see that it's full of life. Actually, the jungle is the place which has the highest diversity of species.

Anyway, would there be fights in the streets? Well, yes... and the people who have to live in those streets would have an interest to clean them of thugs or leave. That means there is a profit to be made. So, private security agencies would be hired to kill the thugs. Ahh, sure, killing is against the laws of religions. Well, Life doesn't care. One either fights for one's life, or gets extinct!

So, unlike in the apocalyptic movies, in reality there would be people fighting against criminals. There would be people who would be professionals at this job.

One might ask: "what would stop these agencies to create the trouble in the first place?" The answer is: Reputation. Unlike in a 90 minutes movie, in reality, the word about the reputation of enforcement agencies would travel around, fast. Thus, if such agencies would cause the trouble then they would not be hired to remove the trouble, but other, reputable, agencies would be.

Or people could ask: "what would stop these agencies to control everybody, rob them and make them do things?" The trouble is, they already did that and now they call themselves "The State". Obviously, one can't create a State in order to remove The State.

I came to despise institutionalized justice only after I started thinking how a free world would look like, that is, a world were people would have their personal space ships (powered by gravitons) and would fly around the solar system, out of the fist of the criminals who want to spread the poison of monopoly everywhere in the Universe.



I am speaking metaphorically stating the law of the jungle as kill and eat or be killed and eaten. There's a much higher Law for man. I'm sure you agree.

I don't. There is no authority over me. I follow my inner nature, that's all. I am a free thinker and recognize no authority over me. I lived to experience the Greatness of the Universe. I suffered so I could learn. I saw the Edge between Life and Death and I saw there is no pain in Death, but only choice. I realized that I either fight or get extinct. A simple law of Nature.

I had the honor of being shown the people who have fought their entire lives against their own ignorance. I have learned from Masters of Despair. I have learned from Gardeners of Thoughts.



Any political body that devises a way to protect life...

There will never be anything like that. Moreover, I have no desire to help building and to follow one as I am no sheep. The ones who can protect Life are people themselves, those people who build a network of choice around themselves.



Liberty and property would be political authority.

Nobody has authority over me. Some people have the power to make me do things, but nobody has any authority. (Exception from this would be a woman I love, but only to a limited extent.)



There are some in our midst who will kill, steal and destroy only because they think they can and they want to.

And there are others who would fight against such criminals.



Trying to destroy the state that you claim to be evil, makes you evil.

It's quite simple to make the difference.

The party which robs half of what billions of people produce, to finance whatever claims of dogoodism, is the monster.

The party which doesn't rob half of what billions of people produce may be a criminal (if, say, it hangs the leaders of the first party to lampposts), but its actions are not institutionalized (= monopolistic and generally agreed as norm) and would never even come close to the same level of monstrosity.

Then again, the goals of the flock and the goals of individuals are quite different, so each party sees things the opposite way, regardless of logical arguments.

The difference is completed by the fact that I'm not trying to destroy the state. I am only pointing out that the state and the flock are evil.



Order evolves naturally and it's usually referred to as "government".

To distinguish the relevant part: in a flock, a hierarchical structure of power arises and controls the actions of the flock.

In a market free of the flock's control, authority is only defined by the flow of people (/ customers) with ideas, resources, money.



What's the difference between socialism and communism.

Communism is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic philosophy.

For instance, these days China has a communist political system, but moves more and more toward a capitalist economy.

Today's Europe has a democratic political system, but a socialist economy.

Today's USA has a democratic political system, but an economy like a Swiss cheese made of socialism and capitalism.

Hitler's Germany had a fascist political system, but a socialist economy.

Political systems are imposing the economic systems.

Both democracy and fascism, as political systems, are using force in order to implement the economic system, however fascism is also using a lot of violence, unlike democracy which has found the exact propaganda which makes people believe that it's the best / optimum thing.

By this I don't mean that people have nothing to complain about. People behave differently individually and in a flock. Masses of people truly believe that being led is a good thing and so they think that democracy (= leadership without violence) is a good thing for the flock, but they also individually complain.

In democracy (unlike in communism and fascism) the leaders have found a way to not use violence in order to not make people rebel. Depending on the level of violence used, the system survives a proportionally inverse amount of time.

In democracy (or in any flock) people use encroaching instead of violence, because violence has a much more visible and immediate cost.

Dictatorial / fascist / imperialist systems are like those virusus which are so deadly that they kill their hosts before they can infect more people. Democracy is a parasite which has found the exact way which allows it to infect virtually all humans.

The world is moving only toward more democracy and socialism. That's because it's just possible to happen, it's the balance, preserved for the longest amount of time, between the HIGHEST (not 100%) level of control and the MINIMUM (not 0%) rebellion.



There are only three choices: tax A plus tax B, tax A but no B, tax B but no A. The four choice (= no tax) is not presented for debate because it can't happen; in fantasy world it could, but not here.

There is a very simple reason why free thinking people should not talk about the presented choices: it would a waste of their time.

The only thing a free thinking individual should think is: I don't talk about tax choices because such a conversation is just toxic gas emitted by those who want to tax.

Therefore, even though there is no fourth choice to say "no taxes", there is a... fifth choice which reads "I am not wasting my time wandering through the toxic waste created by others. If I would do it, they would win the battle because instead of spending my time building, I would be wasting my life kibitzing about the subjects they choose, and thus I would be stopping myself from building Marvels."

So, take the fifth... element!



How can we form organizations that will counter governments?

The problem is that you want an organization to provide freedom.

If you make an organization than people who think differently than you will fight against your organization. Then you'll fight back to protect your organization.

The organization is going to trap you and those who fight against you. A system is a trap and a prison.

The only time when freedom will work as an intrinsic property of the human civilization is when humans will let it work. ... Just don't hold your breath.

But there is a possibility. It's possible that if the human reach will become weak enough, some humans will escape the grip of the flock.

Some time in the future humans will use the graviton to obtain energy, propulsion, shields and weapons. They will be able to fly around and thus get far away just enough to escape the reach of those who want to control them. The "system" will break apart in the smallest possible pieces: the individuals.

No system is required to get there. It's just evolution.

There is no creature on this planet that could create one / many organization(s) which could defeat governments. However, it's possible to do things which would allow some people to escape the control of governments.

If you'll try to make an organization which would want to defeat governments, you'll waste your time and energy. If you would by chance succeed for a while, governments will be created back. Why? Because it is physically possible.

When it will be physically impossible for governments to form, that's the only moment when governments will die (but not defeated by anyone).



What does it mean for it to be "physically possible" or "physically impossible" for governments to form?

It's physically possible for some dudes who have all the good intentions to make up an organization whose declared goal is to protect people from criminals. Then these dudes tell to everybody how they can help them get rid of the evil from within the society. Then lots of people who have all the good intentions accept to follow certain rules and even pay some fee for protection.

Then more and more people join this organization and they start creating more and more rules, raise the fee and ultimately make it mandatory for non-members because more money is needed to manage all the rules.

It is a mistake to believe that the result of the actions of a government are disastrous because the government is evil. The result is disastrous because there are rules enforced on everybody, and because most people believe they are doing the right thing by creating such rules. Note: the evil is the (monopolistic) rule, not the intent.

This is physically possible (= can physically happen) just as going to the grocery store is physically possible.

Physically impossible is when the above can't physically happen, that is, can't make (most) people obey them.



If the state is so bad, why don't you overthrow it?

The state exists because most people want it, they want to be controlled and control other people. It's the nature of the flock.

People have previously overthrown states, but other kinds of states took their place.

There is no solution to the problem posed by states because the real problem is that individuals are forced by the natural context to be strongly influenced by everybody else. When individuals will separate themselves from the flock, those individuals who want to be free will have their independence.



If voluntary action ameliorates the problems of the society, then there will be no cry from the masses for the government to do something. Voluntary reduction in water usage during a well-known extreme drought would have prevented the cries to fix the problem of water shortages.

That can't happen because there is nothing voluntary in responding to blackmail:

  • If you do this, you're a good dog. If you don't do it, I'll beat the crap out of you.

  • If you pay us half of what you produce, you're a responsible citizen. If you don't, we'll sue you and then kill you if you resist.

The state of Reality would simply be reset to a new level. Paying taxes under coercion (= your "voluntary") only makes people get used to doing so, it doesn't stop the thugs from asserting a need for constant (and perhaps more) action of the (same) kind.

The reason is that the thug has learned that blackmail is an effective way to determine people to do certain actions without being physically put a gun at their head, which is more economic.

In other words, the thug has found and learned a path which is easier for him (to the best of his abilities) to take and he will mostly choose the same path in the future. The problem is that this path is not born from market economics, but from coercion into a specific direction.

The only case when the "problem" would be "solved" is when people would / could not be blackmailed into doing the action, but would truly do it from voluntary action, that is, if their actions would have an economic basis, not an instinctual one.



If control is bad, doesn't that make every political system bad?

In a flock (= democracy, in this case), the people who are being controlled truly believe that control is a good thing. If you were to have some magical power and could do away with control, people would simply bring it back and you would really cause a lot of damage to these people because they need to control others like they need water.

They just can't stand to see individuals acting on their own free will; they must meddle in. It's not a choice, it's not a rational process, it's (the flock) instinct. It's biology / human nature. There is no way to evolve out of this.

The only way out will be when technology will empower individuals to separate themselves from the flock, to effectively defend themselves against other people, at least from an economic point of view. But this way out doesn't mean that the human nature would evolve to a better stage, it just means that it will be physically impossible for the flock to control individuals. If this technology would suddenly vanish, even a million years later, people would again try to control others.

For the flock, control is food. Control is not bad for it, it's good. For a person, it depends whether he is a member of the flock, or a free individual (individualist in thinking).



Humans have rights.

Rights? Humans have no rights. They have a certain nature, nature which makes them do stuff. "Rights" are born from suffering minds who think they need to explain (to slick criminals who make them waste their lives) why they should be free of criminal interference, interference as they (= not everybody) understand it.

For instance, lots of people waste their time trying to prove why humans own themselves. Dudes, that is human nature. That is no "right". It is a fact. It is Reality. It just is! It is the underlying medium of (propagation of) interaction: Life.

It is a fight for survival. It may very well happen that if you imprison a living creature, it would get used to its status and stop fighting for its survival. But, dudes, that does not change Reality, Reality which integrates the survival instinct into living creatures. The survival instinct is simply Life itself. It is physically impossible for Life to exist without the survival instinct. It is dumb to even separate the two. Life is survival instinct.

That is a Law of Nature. It does not need proof because it doesn't care, just like gravity needs no proof in order to exist. It acts independently of any subsequent claim, unlike property which has no medium of interaction outside living creatures (except for the claims which arise after humans start living).

If someone takes a human as a slave, the "slave" simply blows the criminal's head off (or he tries, anyway, maybe...). Dudes, as simple as that! No proof of apriori freedom "right" is required! It's just Life in Motion!

Take communism for example. Its poison collapsed because it was killing humans and so humans killed it first (not all over the world), not because there are rights. There is nothing to prove in poison being evil. That is simply a fact, Reality. If you swallow poison, you get as dead as a corpse.

Humans, as a civilization, change their environment to fit their instinct (the survival instinct in this case), not because there are "rights".

Anybody could build the most incredibly beautiful argument, wasting millennia, about rights, absolute systems of reference outside the human mind, and stuff like that. But the entire civilization would most probably simply pass by because it utterly does not care, because its nature has nothing to do with mathematical abstractions, but simply with biology.

A system is merely a prison / trap for a free mind! All the things about rights and property arise as a consequence of human interaction. They do not exist outside them.



The principles of morality are like the laws of physics. Human beings only discover them (or not). People can choose whether or not to act on these principles.

No human can choose to act or not on the principle of gravity. In contrast, each individual has different moral principles. I guess it's better to say that the principles are the same but they look different because they are manifested from different points of view.

All humans act in their best interest (as defined by biology), so, yes, it can be said that the moral principles are the same, but this is not something which obliterates conflict (quite to the contrary). But when you tell most people that something is absolute, outside human emotions, they automatically think that there is a point of confluence of righteousness, a point where there is no conflict. In fact, the Universe exists exactly because there is conflict (a conflict between Void and Change).



It is incorrect to say that all humans act in their best interest.

But it is correct. The explanation is very simple: you believed that I was saying that people define what their best interest is. However, I specifically said: "as defined by biology". With "biology" I mean the laws of physics, not the human made science.

People don't act in their best interest because they know what that is, but because their instincts drive them to do certain actions which are in their best interest, that is, to maximize their chances or survival and minimize their chances of death.

I suppose you could say "well, no, there is nothing which makes them do certain actions which maximize their chances or survival and minimize their chances of death".

In such a case I would say that is incorrect. Living creatures do exactly that. There is this very incredibly simple survival instinct which simply forces living creatures to want to live. The living creatures act in consequence: they fight for their life, like, for example, they go look for food instead of sitting on their asses waiting for their their bellies to be magically filled with food. Living creatures don't do things because they choose so, but because they are forced so (by their instincts).

Of course, this doesn't mean that living creatures succeed in living, but it simply means that they increase their chances of survival. But the actual results can be seen only on the long term.

Living creatures actively increase their chances of survival because their instincts force them to do so. Most certainly, these instincts have no brain, have no emotions, have no logic. They are pure machine, they are pure laws of physics.

As a matter of fact it is wrong to say even that humans are forced by their instincts, for the simple reason that those instincts are the human.

You know, there actually are living creatures which have no instinct of survival. The only thing is that these creatures get extinct before we can even see them, because the environment is simply not fit for them to live (and they just can't adapt to the environment).



Is it wrong for a human parent to sacrifice his life for his child, under extreme threat? If morality could only be defined as correct, if it directed people to actions which keep them alive, then this action would have to be considered immoral on that basis.

There is, here, a very simple problem, common to all moral philosophies: you want to define a common morality for everybody, you want to have a standard by which you can judge and execute other people because they don't stay within the boundaries you set. Sure, most people have some common standards, like not killing other people, but that is all: a context. It's a common ground.

You can see human nature in action every second of your life. But do you have the strength to accept it as is and let it be?



Why all the paranoia about using the word "right?" Isn't that just talking about what's right and wrong?

It isn't about right and wrong. It is about freedom of mind. Those who claim "rights" to something are simply trying to condition others.

No human has a right to his identity because it has an ability given by birth to identify himself. Others take away this ability. Notice: other humans take away what is already there! Life is given through birth, others take it away. There is no right to Life unless you have some interest to take one away, or fight against those who want to take your Life away from you. The point is: one human is trying to take another human's Life.

All these "rights" happen inside a society, where humans interact and are trying to get some advantage out it. They are trying to condition other humans to believe in the same thing, they are trying to fit everybody in the same mold. Throughout his life time, every human is conditioned by others to fit the standards. Claiming rights or claiming absence of rights is a way of trying to control others, to obtain some advantage out of the (conflictual) situation.

Every human likes to hear how great he is, how everything he does is morally correct, how he fits the idea of pure / absolute morality. People don't like to be separated from the flock. They like to fit. They like others to be like them.

There is the (in)ability to do one thing or another. Ability simply exists. Rights are simply smoke created by those who claim their existence or negative existence, smoke which makes others waste their time trying to find their way out.

Let me explain the difference between rights and abilities using emotions instead of logic.

All those who believe in rights should do a simple exercise / test:

Repeat, several times, the following: "I have a right to be free!" You could also write this on several large paper sheets and pin them to the wall in order to visualize your goal. As you repeat it, you feel better and better about yourself since you have someone's permission to be free. You've got yourself a right from someone who agreed to give it to you! Someone said to you: "Yes, you have a right to be free. I agree! I concur! You are correct! It is your right!"

Now repeat "I am free!" As you repeat this, you understand that it is your choice to be free. It is your decision to be free. It is your will to be free! You do not ask permission, you do not wait for permission! You take control of your abilities to act in accordance to your nature. You are free!

Yes, there are many people who do their best to imprison you, to rape your mind and murder your soul. They use smoke to make you lose sight of your goal: freedom of mind. They make you waste your time wandering through the labyrinth of illusory proofs, making you to endlessly seek in fog what does not exist without force being used: a right. These individuals want to take away from you what you already have: your freedom, your ability to say no to their control over your mind. They say "These are the rights you have, these are rights you don't have. Prove otherwise!" And you go around seeking your much needed proofs instead of simply being free and just go do your usual business.



How are you free? You just do what you feel like doing. I guess some might say that these feelings should be explained: why they exist, why there are the way they are. Okay, so you have to understand your feelings before acting. But here is the catch: you don't have to prove them (to anybody)! You just have to look inside you and understand your own nature. You have to understand what lies beneath appearances, not prove that is either right or wrong!

Some people might say: "Well, I have this feeling like raping. So, I firmly believe that I have to prove it is either right or wrong." Then I would ask: "Why do you have to prove that?" They would answer: "Because I don't like it." Aha, you don't like it! Then, why don't you try to prove why you don't like it? Why don't you simply choose: "Okay, I am not going to rape because I just don't like it! It would be wrong!"

Incredible, no proof is required, no time or energy is wasted. It's all about the inner nature. Of course, this inner nature is conflicting, it is never a straight line. You must find your own balance! You find that balance by understanding your nature and by understanding other people's nature, but not by trying to prove anything.

If a human understands, then everything is reduced to his understanding of reality and to his inner nature. If there is a conflict between his inner nature and the consequences of his actions, a choice is made. But there is nothing to prove.

If you don't like raping then simply don't do it. Don't waste time trying to prove what already exists. On the other side, if you do like raping then what would a proof change? In order to stop raping there must be a conflict within the mind, there must be two parts which strongly say: "I like it" and "I don't like it".

Of course, some people might say that I chose an example about something which is proved to be wrong: raping. Okay, so take a blank sheet of paper. You feel like tearing it, right? Obviously, if that is what you feel then you tear it. But if something inside your is telling you that it is wrong to do so, you just don't tear it. No proof of any kind is required to take an action or to refrain from doing an action.

When in doubt, don't act!



Think about this over night, maybe over many nights. Then ask yourself: "Do I have right to be free because I have permission / agreement, or am I free because it is my will?"



P.S.

Question: Is it right or is it wrong to tear the blank sheet of paper?

Answer: It is wrong because you are destroying a part of a tree, something which did not hurt you! Now go plant one to repay your evil deed!

(I can already hear in the back row: "Make me!")



Child porn is patently wrong.

The issue is not what is right and what is wrong, but what you want to do about it?

It is irrelevant whether there are child exploiters out there, it is irrelevant whether there are terrorist out there, it is irrelevant whether there is pollution out there, it is irrelevant whether there are dirt-poor people out there, it is irrelevant whether there are dead-sick / handicapped people out there, it is irrelevant whether there are abortionists out there...

What is relevant is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to rob honest people in order to be able to go hunt for your idea of crime? Do you want to use other people's resources (without their consent) to "fix" what you see to be wrong?

It is not possible to do away with crime, as most people understand it, because it is human nature and it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. Existing crime is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether an individual wants to waste more resources, to engage and create more crime in order to satisfy the delusional idea that crime can be done away with.

You keep saying "we". Who is this "we"? Do you have the resources necessary to find child exploiters and you are asking around to see if anyone wants to hunt them? Or are you just implying that others should do what you want?

What does it mean that "we should adopt..."? I, for instance have no need to adopt anything. I have something called "common sense".

So, why do "we" need to adopt anything which is not contract?



I suggest we adopt this as our definition of X, and that we display it prominently and declare that we will fight it in any way we can.

Where would "we" be displaying this? What does it mean "fight"? Are you saying that businesses should start policing? Are you going to pay for that? Are you going to compensate the honest people who get hurt in the process?



But without the declaration and intent, I think we've sanctioned it. Let's at least be against it.

I am against it. I have (a certain) common sense which needs no declaration.

Think about this: say businesses don't do what you want, say I and others don't do what you want... so, what are you going to do next?

THAT is the only relevant thing! Are you going to rob us?

It is much easier to destroy than it is to build, so why don't you start building (because time is short).



I'd have one law only, that all violations of life, liberty and property (criminal actions), would be tried with jury trials.

You're just trying to create a system, something different that what is today, and you believe it would be as you think of it. I once thought that. I thought I have the luxury to waste my time trying to improve the state by forcing it (in my mind) to do what I wanted. But the things one conceives will NEVER happen because reality is outside any mind.

What matters is what you will do, not what you would do. Remember that you have no magical powers with which you could change the world as you want to. So, this is much like being a Miss World and saying "I want peace on Earth. I want everybody to have enough food..."

Get rid of all laws and see that private courts would exist. You don't have to create a system, it / they would just pop up. Reputable private enforcement agencies would accept the decisions of reputable private courts, and enforce their decisions. No "law" is required because these private institutions would act based on profit in a competitive market. None would Rule. They would have their own rules, but there would be no law to force everybody.



But we should all respect our veniremen who would be sitting in judgment over us and our behavior when we are accused of violating someone else's life, liberty or property.

In order to make decisions about compensation / punishment, a professional body is required. Jurors are not experts and institutionalized justice does what its manipulators want. Private organizations would be limited by the lack of resources and by the fact that they can't just force people to obey them. They would have to follow the people (or as others would say, market forces), instead of people following them.



Allow the veniremen to try anyone who knows a child is being abused and does nothing about it. You'll find a lot more folks willing to do their duty and tell the victims family what is going on.

Well, Stalin's philosophy will never die: make the people police themselves... and they'd better like it! What I would do in such a case, I would because it's what I decide, not because it's my "duty".



Another thing that has been puzzling me has been the idea of how a state-free law system deals with murder and abuse. There are reams of emails describing bloody money, in the case of murder, and other compensatory claims for abuse. But what happens when the abuser is a family member and the abused is a minor? It is either solved within the family or it is not solved at all.

In a state-free society, we / the society would let some crimes would remain unpunished. The society commonly accepts that certain things go unpunished not because they are not wrong, but because we cannot figure out how to punish them.

Various people can figure out various ways to punish the people they
consider criminals. It's just that other people don't agree with the
punishment and prefer most people to get slaughtered instead, under the supervision of their system of monopolistic "justice".

I have to say again that X was asking about a certain group of crimes, not about specific cases. Murder would NOT away get UNpunished in a society with private justice. Yeah, sure, that murder of X by Y could get away unpunished.

If the victim (or relative, or whomever gets involved) of a crime like murder or rape would go to a private court to prove her case and get a resolution, then it would be left to (big) enforcement agencies to enforce that. There is no guarantee that the crime would be punished. In such a case, there might still be some people willing to punish the criminals, with or without payment.


When I say "we as a society" I mean a general sense of "we as a society." I don't mean any particular "we" being some vigilante or some rights group or anything else.

Private courts, private enforcement agencies, vigilante, rights group, etc., all are part of the concept called private justice. Why? Because neither you, nor I, nor X would get to decide how society works, who can provide private justice. It either is private, or you have monopoly on it.

So, all these groups, who conceptually make the "we" word, get to do justice as they see it. Groups of crime would not get away unpunished. The variety of groups who would provide private justice, would cover all groups of crimes. So, in the case of private justice, "we" would not let murder of rape get away unpunished. I am not a part of "we who would let the category of crime called murder / rape get away unpunished".

If there is anything that private courts and large enforcement agencies would not provide is resolution and enforcement for cases like "he swore at me, ma'". Then again, these groups are the ones which would set the standards for what a crime is, for instance rape and murder.



Oh, sorry, this wasn't a "I hate the state" thread.

My feelings for institutionalized justice have nothing to do with the fact that simple observation of Reality shows that institutionalized justice says that if you defend yourself against criminals who attack you, you have very good chances to become the criminal in the eyes of this justice system, unless you can prove that you were the victim (and not with good chances in such case either).

Therefore, you have to choices: (1) don't get caught defending yourself, (2) wait to get robed and slaughtered. I could actually like point 2, I might like to play the role of the victim, just like most of those who run or support the institutionalized justice system. Yet, my feelings do not change the available choices.

My point is that in a state-free society, with private justice, each type of crime would determine a reaction even from people who are not part of the victim's family. Actually, it's quite possible that family member would not have the ability, determination, resources, expertise to provide justice.

You, I, all the people here could set forth a resolution for a crime, either individually or as a group. That type of crime would not get away unpunished.

Variety is the only mechanism which sustains freedom, which is the path to prosperity. With a private justice system, there is no generic "we" group which would do the morally correct (by yours, mine, or X's standards) actions.

But there are specific "we" groups which would think similarly and thus would do the same actions. But other "we" groups would do different things. So, I didn't like your use of the word "we" to refer to a monolithic behavior of the society.



Well, that's nice for that "we". I today read about the spies Palestine that were dealt with by "we". Something about stoning and shooting in public, not very pleasant.

So what?! That doesn't fit your moral principles and you want to reshape the world to fit them? In a system with private justice you would be free (= not crushed by the state, but limited only by your group's resources) to get together with your friends in thinking and go punish those dudes. But, yes, such things would happen (and do happen even a state-run society).

In a society with private justice there would be different groups of people which would do different things because they see things differently. Certainly, those people who don't like such freedom are free (= have the natural ability) to get together and create a monopolistic group which would impart justice by their standards.

The ways words are used induce specific ways of thinking. I do not like to use words like "we" to refer to the entire society as a monolith because it induces the idea that society is not fragmented. Society is very fragmented, starting from its biological motivations (by reflection in the environment, because the root motivation is the same – survival). The human society is not a behavioral monolith.



Who enforces contracts in the absence of the state?

Let's say X rapes Y. What can Y do to punish X? In a society with an institutionalized justice system, Y has to use the justice system and prove the rape happened. This can hardly happen. So, where is the justice? There is no Justice! There is only a system which protects criminals from honest people, not the other way around. If there would be no institutionalized justice, Y could simply blow X's head off, without fear that would be punished by the "justice" system.

Honest people have no reason to hurt honest people, but criminals do hurt honest people. Putting institutions to judge who the criminal is, is only a way to stop the honest people from reacting to criminals.

Justice systems are born from the lack of understanding of human interaction, which is based on natural law: voluntary respect or, in its absence, physical enforcement. Respect (or fear of violent physical reaction) for one's claims is what limits violence. Institutionalized justice does not solve problems. Natural law does.

So, the answer to the question is: you! You enforce your contracts. In reality, you would first try to use the services of arbitrators (= people who are specialized in mediating conflicts) and, if unsuccessful, only then use force, probably by hiring someone.



Are states infringing on people's freedom by taxing them and forcing them to do other things?

One way to explain freedom would be to think what would happen a in completely private city. Let's assume a private city in the sky, fully enclosed. People live there for generations. At some point, X is born there but does not like the local laws and is very vocal about that (maybe throws some violence in there). So, X has the freedom to leave but he has no money to actually move in a different city (or back on Earth).

So, is this private city infringing on X's freedom? I say no! The real problem is a matter of context.

Of course, one can say a country does not belong to the state. Okay, but who owns a country? This is the tragedy of the commons: there is no owner.

In fact, the real problem is that people are trapped because they have no money to physically move elsewhere.







License | Contact