34 votes

Why I can't argue for Limited government.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." — George Washington, allegedly

I believe the root of our problems revolve around force and coercion. The ability for some to coerce others - through the threat of violence - into action that they would not voluntarily take, most people agree, is wrong.

The entire structure of our government is based on the ability to use force. As George Washington (allegedly) points out, it is force. The core of what makes government government is its ability to steal to fund its operations and its ability to initiate force to carry out its agenda. The perceived authority to use force is what makes the organizational structure of government unique.

We teach our kids that theft and coercion is wrong. We don’t accept this behavior from our friends and we condemn it when we see others doing it. We have this reaction because reason, which government is not, tells us it is wrong. Reason tells us that peace won’t come through theft and force. In order to find peace we have to respect others and show tolerance even when we may not agree with their actions.

When the very heart of our system of “order” and “justice”, the system used to “keep the peace”, the system that protects us from unjust force and coercion... when this system is based upon force and coercion, should we expect a successful result? Is this possible, or will it only create more violence?

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

When people argue for “small” or “limited” government it seems that they are trying to solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used to create them. In fact, it is the same kind of thinking that big government proponents use, just to a smaller degree.

In both cases emotions are driving the abandonment of logic. The mistake isn’t in the size or scope of government, the mistake is in acceptance of force and coercion to solve a problem. To accept limited government is to accept some amount of force. The difference between small government proponents and big government proponents is the extent to which they are willing to use theft and force to solve a problem.

The motives are good. The desire to feed the poor, help the elderly, provide for the common defense are all noble. But our emotions let the false promises that theft and coercion give seem necessary. When you are arguing for small or limited government in favor of big government you aren’t condemning this evil, but merely trying to change one’s emotional attachment to a specific issue. You are trying to convince them that certain things are too important to not use force for, but the issues they feel passionate about aren’t important enough. That’s a tough argument to make.

Often times we use the argument of the evils of theft and force on certain issues, but fail to take this principle to its logical conclusion. This slight amount of hypocrisy is confusing and hurts ones credibility. How can something be a principle if it has exceptions?

“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.” – Albert Einstein

It's simple. It's not complex. It's not violent. Theft and coercion are wrong.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Jerk in your own circle

I'll have none of it.

The design of a Free Market Government is understandable in actual actions done by actual people.

Words can convey information as to what actually happens in a Free Market Government design.



Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

Jerk away, if that is your choice.


seems like a stretch. I was

seems like a stretch. I was thinking that consent of the governed would be the governing body actually asking and receiving consent from the prospective citizens..

What would happen to a citizen of Switzerland if they decided they no longer gave their consent to be governed?

Why not look at home instead?

The legal precedent occurring between 1776 and 1788 when these united states (states united voluntarily) worked as a Free Market Government Design, there was a lack of consent in Massachusetts that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

What happened in that case?

If you care to know, I can offer my end in a discussion, and a few sources of information.


When the criminals take over the government, and therefore consent is no longer working, the victims of the criminal government become slaves to those criminals who took over that government. What do the slaves do when they do not consent to being slaves?


states uniting voluntarily

states uniting voluntarily isn't the same as individuals uniting voluntarily. Does the united nations have the consent of the governed because all nations voluntarily joined? The governed are always the ppl and creating a mythical entity above the individual that speaks for the individual without the individuals consent doesn't make it consensual.

I would like to hear your take on shay's rebellion.

Offense or Defense

The words you speak, in my view, miss the point.

The necessity of government is forced upon defenders by offenders, or in other words the potential victims of criminals are forced into expending their precious resources cooperatively toward defense against inevitable victimization at the hands of criminals.

The necessity of figuring out how to voluntarily combine forces of individual defenders in such a way as to make crime less affordable for criminals compared to other (voluntary) pursuits that criminals would pursue when faced with effective defense is demanded upon the potential victims by the criminals.

The criminals have figured out how to voluntarily cooperate among themselves, and the criminals have figured out how to convince the targeted victims that the criminals are their protectors.

A protection racket, in other words, is a method by which the criminals convince the victims that they have no other choice other than to pay the criminals for protection against the criminals.

When such a lie takes hold, the victims are then steadily growing weaker while the criminals are steadily growing stronger.

The final nail in the coffin occurs when the victims no longer conceive of voluntary government, and therefore each individual victim is completely left to their own individual defensive power.

Shays's Rebellion (false terminology) was the last battle of the Revolutionary War as actions of victims of a criminal Massachusetts "government" were voluntary associations in defense of those criminals who took over that State government within that Voluntary Union of Constitutionally Limited Nation States or Republics.

According to known common law (another falsified term to be wary of) and according to the principles reported in The Declaration of Independence, the Slaves who were being made into Slaves by the criminal Government in Massachusetts, banded together to regain control of the Massachusetts Armory, however the Revolutionary War Soldiers were "put down" and the survivors of the criminal actions of the "Governors" of Massachusetts fled like runaway slaves into Vermont.

So that set-up the legal precedent which proved the validity of the Free Market design of a Confederation of Constitutionally Limited Nation States or Republics, because there was no Central Monopoly Involuntary Slave Master Cabal (Dictatorship) having Authority to demand that Vermont return the runaway slaves who ran away from Massachusetts.

Vermont was asked to return the fugitives (Revolutionary War veterans who were following the principle declared in The Declaration of Independence = consent of the governed) slaves but Vermont did not "officially" reply or some such refusal.

It was obvious, then, to the Central Bankers Cabal, including both Hamilton and Washington, that the Voluntary nature of the association had to go, so the so called Federalists convened a secret meeting in Philadelphia to make a deal with the Southern Slave States, so as to Consolidate all the Constitutionally Limited Republics into one Consolidated Nation State which would then be an Involuntary Association, whereby any slave anywhere could be hunted down and returned to their masters.

The southern criminals were given an offer by the norther criminals (central bankers) that was heavily biased on the side of the Central Banker Cabal, which ensured that there would be a day of reckoning, which was that ObamaNation called The Civil War.

From the moment the united states became a corporate entity in 1788 there was continuous effort applied by the corporate "president" to enslave all the slaves into slavery. The first major expense of abusing government power was called, falsely, The Whiskey Rebellion, which is then a precedent to compare to Shays's Rebellion in stark contrast to how a Voluntary Free Market Government design did work, in contrast with how an Involuntary False Government does work.




Note: A Voluntary army defeated the British invaders.

A voluntary army attempted to defeat the Massachusetts criminal government (so called Shays's Rebellion)

A CONSCRIPTED army of slaves was assembled by Hamilton and Washington to suppress a slave revolt and to CRUSH a money competitor in Pennsylvania (so called Whiskey Rebellion).


That doesn't make it right

I agree with what you say except I disagree with 'The necessity of government is forced upon...' I think we should leave out the word "necessity".

I believe there is another way, a better way, which makes the way you described and the way that it typically happens not a "necessity". That is what I am trying to say, lets not let the offenders force us into this false solution. We can change this if we stop accepting theft and force as a necessity and strive for something better. We wont evolve past this unless we change the way we think and stop accepting the status quo.

On Shays's Rebellion - thanks for the commentary and links. Interesting stuff.

Pacifism is destroyed.

Even if you decide to leave out the word "necessity" while the criminals consume the pacifists, eventually the pacifists are no longer in the genetic make-up of human beings, and then what happens?

The concept of necessity is based upon the concept of sustainability.

A living form that consumes itself cannot sustain itself, therefore the living form that consumes itself, by necessity, does not exist.

If the living form does exist, then by necessity, there must be a function working that sustains the living form.

If the living form includes a gross error among the numbers of the living form, such as errors involving mutations whereby some of the individual members of the species are without conscience, sociopaths, psychopaths, pathological liars, criminals, born without parts of the normal brain that operate as "species self-defensive weapons" (conscience), without self defense of the species, those individuals destroy the species, and without a counter to such things, the species would be dominated by those abnormal, unnatural, mutated, sub-species, individuals, who would then destroy the species.







In other words there is a self-defense mechanism which operates as a species protection device and a word that could be used to describe that internal mechanism is human conscience.

Those who will not step in and work to avoid a crime whereby, for example, a mutated criminal human is burning and eating babies alive, standing next to a pile of baby bones, with a line of babies lined up for the next meal, are as abnormal as the criminal cannibal murderer, in the sense that crime equates to individual human beings destroying individual human beings; by commission or omission.

Here, have another baby?

The necessity factor is understood because of human reason, and because of human conscience. Without human conscience there is no reason to preserve the self, perhaps, and no reason to preserve the species.

"I believe there is another way, a better way, which makes the way you described and the way that it typically happens not a "necessity"."

Those words appear to me as another case of someone dreaming up ideas that they have, and then they place those ideas into my steam of conciseness. Whatever it is you think I wrote, to me, you obviously miss the point.

Here is one example of "a better way":


That "better way" worked as it was designed to work. That "better way" still works today in places where it works, still, today. The concepts elucidated in that work are easy to understand and to implement, given the opportunity.

Who is in a position to give or take opportunity today?

Moral human beings with operating human conscience are now running amok burning babies alive (or is that a contradiction?), perhaps eating them, perhaps mounting their severed heads as trophies, and if the remaining moral human beings, assuming there are any left, are still financing the sociopaths, financing the psychopaths, financing the criminal cannibal mass murderers, as we speak, if that is going unchecked, in any way, then that process of might making right, that process of violence begetting violence, consumes that life form that was once known as human beings.

The process is well understood by our ancestors.



"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

What does "transform us into beasts" mean?

The bodies are piling up, as the opportunities are being taken away.





Burning people alive.

Child Sex Slavery

Drug Pushers

All made legal, all financed by supposedly moral people, and those crimes are minor compared to the crime of World War.





The supposedly moral people are fooled into thinking that payments paid to the criminals will be investments made to ensure protection from criminals.

That is how that works, and to confuse that with true, defensive, government is an obvious, measurable, and accurately measurable, deception designed to weaken the defensive power of the targeted victims.

"That is what I am trying to say, lets not let the offenders force us into this false solution."

I don't. You don't. Who does that leave?

While we don't take the lie and believe it, there are many, even now, who are voluntarily paying into the FUND (International Monetary FUND for now, and denominated in Federal Reserve Notes for now) so as to accomplish what task?

Torture and mass murder other people, not me yet.

Hire the best liars so that profits can be realized for those who profit from torture and mass murder.

Just following orders, without question, because it is too much work to question those orders.

Avoid a prison term, and possibly worse treatment for failing to pay the extortion fee.

The list can be made by each individual person who pays the extortion fee.

"We can change this if we stop accepting theft and force as a necessity and strive for something better."

That already happened. Slaves fled from England and populated the areas that became states in what became known as America.

Here is evidence:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In between 1776 and 1788, the new voluntary government worked well enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression for profit then on the planet Earth. It worked. It was a form of a voluntary government based upon the consent of the governed. It was a Free Market of competitive Constitutionally Limited Republics voluntarily joined into a mutual defense Union under The Articles of Confederation.

The reason for the demise of the voluntary government was well reported by those who saw it being stolen at the time. The Central Bankers of the day could not allow competition to exist, because competition would destroy their plans to create and maintain a Legal Money Monopoly Power which is the False Front that hides a Legal Extortion Racket.

If you don't get it, then you don't get it, despite your obvious, and accurately measurable capacity to understand more than most people.

"On Shays's Rebellion - thanks for the commentary and links. Interesting stuff."

Yes, please note, the people defending Liberty in the so called Revolutionary War were volunteers. The people who defended Liberty in the so called Shay's Rebellion were volunteers. The people who crushed the Spirit of Liberty included Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, as they assembled an army of Slaves (Conscripts) so as to invade Pennsylvania and then destroy a Money Competitor.

How does a person make money? In those days a farmer made money by selling farm products, competitively. Rotten food does not sell. In those days the Central Banking Criminals were busy taking over each State, as they could "get away with it" and in the case of Massachusetts the VICTIMS of the CRIMES perpetrated by the Central Bankers who took over Massachusetts, despite the limits of the Massachusetts Constitution, did what The Declaration of Independence clearly Declares as the duty of all free people, they fought CRIME made LEGAL.

The Central Banking Crime is easy to know, as Central Bankers issue fraudulent money, whereby they get to spend the money they create out of thin air, and then they demand as payment of Involuntary Taxes the PROFITS that everyone produces on their own. In the case of Massachusetts there was no SINGLE MONEY ENFORCED NATION WIDE, so that the TAXES were demanded in GOLD, not in Federal Reserve Notes, and not in National Currency, and what happens when Fraud Money is made, and Fraud Money is used by Frauds in Government, and Gold is then used as money at the same time? The Gold (by Gresham's Law) leaves the area, because importers will not accept the Fraud Money, so Gold must be used to buy imports, and exporters will accept the Fraud Money if nothing else (no Gold) is offered. So Gresham's Law works like a one way check valve (or a diode) in a hydraulic circuit (or an electric circuit) where Gold left Massachusetts.

So farmers stop making grain/corn/wheat/whatever and start making Whiskey, competitive Whiskey, high quality and low cost Whiskey, in a Free Market of MONEY, because that is how Farmers Make Money when the Central Bankers are busy printing Fraud Money and causing Gold to leave the area.

They stop farming long enough to make enough MONEY (in the form of Whiskey) to then have MONEY to buy supplies for farming.

So what do the Central Bankers do next?

They TAX Whiskey, payable in Gold, so as to CRUSH that money competition, and so as to force people to use the Fraudulent Money.

The defenders of Liberty knew the score, so they continued their Duty as their Duty was spelled out in The Declaration of Independence, as the Farmers (Defense of Liberty Veterans) went to take back the Armory in Massachusetts.

The defenders of Liberty were defeated in Massachusetts but the TEST CASE PRECEDENT of how well a Free Market Government Design works, WORKED.

The defenders of Liberty fled the criminal State of Massachusetts, after being defeated by the criminals running Massachusetts, and those defenders of Liberty fled to Vermont.

If all the other victims in Massachusetts understand what was really happening, and they decide to choose better instead of worse, then there would be a mass exodus from Massachusetts to Vermont, as voters and tax payers vote with their feet, making a voluntary choice, volunteering to FINANCE a government that actually does work effectively in defense of Liberty instead of working to make crime pay better for the criminals.


TwelveOhOne's picture

Just following orders

"3. Just following orders, without question, because it is too much work to question those orders."

It is a significant amount of work to get to the "root cause" of any orders. I recently purchased the book "Constitional Income: Do You Have Any?" which I saw referenced here. I also bought "Breakpoint and Beyond" which Michael Nystrom strongly recommended (had to purchase a used one, it's out of print), and am reading that before I get to the above.

I'm in the middle of an email to my parents, detailing Bohemian Grove, MK ULTRA, and other topics; the gist of it is to ask them whether I was ever separated from them as a child, particularly in the presence of authorities -- doctor, shrink, etc., and especially if it may have been government-related.

I'm not sure I'll get a positive response, and even if it happened it's possible that they no longer remember it. The reason, my goal, is one of healing: I want to use EFT (or perhaps the "Matrix Reimprinting" technique which grew from EFT, and I just read about today) in order to heal myself of that trauma (if it happened) and all others, so that I can be the most loving combination of molecules possible.

You are so right, though, in that it takes a lot of time and effort to get to the root cause, and understand who I am, why I'm here, what I can do next, where society went wrong and how to fix it.

Most of us struggle to "make ends meet" (which really means, in most cases, "pay debts that we never incurred"). Huh. I wonder if that phrase was designed to seem similar to "end justifies the means" and confuse us. There's so much confusion out there, it's hard to find relief.

Spread the word, is what I try to do. Many others don't have the time I currently do to do research. So I share. Not everyone is receptive. More and more are, though, as time marches on. "Time just gets away from us" ended the book, "True Grit" -- and, while it does, more and more are waking up.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Fully Informed Jury Association

I tried asking specific questions once upon a time many years ago while I was allowed on The Fully Informed Jury Association Forum. My questions concerned the work of Lysander Spooner in his Essay on Trial by Jury.



The operator of the Forum began a series of personal attacks on me while evading any questions. Soon the words published on their own site were so obviously dictatorial that the thread with my questions and their abuse was removed and my I.P. number was blocked.

It occurs to me that the Fully Informed Jury Association was, and probably still is, a counterfeit version of something that the Union (Monopoly) of "Law Professionals" (Bar Association) does not want to exist. Once the targeted victims are gaining the power of knowledge concerning how Trial by Jury actually does work, they then have the power to defend against the criminals who are now operating the false (so called federal) government.

The root cause is crime, defined as crime by criminals, as criminals target and then injure innocent victims, and a very destructive crime is the crime of fraud, whereby the criminals maintain a false government power. To hid the false government power of extortion (IRS) there is in place a false money monopoly (The FED) whereby power produced by anyone capable of producing power is transferred to those criminals who operate the Money Monopoly Power that hides the Extortion Monopoly Power.

The root cause can be found by following the fraudulent money to the source of it; and there will be the most powerful criminals on the planet earth.


TwelveOhOne's picture


I have no association with FIJA other than to always tell the judge that I intend to nullify, whenever I am called for jury duty.

In the future, I will try harder to get on the jury -- and then nullify. Unless the crime was one where person or property was harmed; anything else is a thought crime, e.g. "we think you might have hit someone at the rate your were traveling" or "you had this item in your possession, which means we think you might do something to harm someone with it", or "we think you should give us your resources."

Yeah, most crimes are thought crimes -- on the government's part.

Whether the organization itself is run right or corrupt, I have no knowledge of -- but sharing our ability to nullify, that's important. (While writing this, I'm reminded of the "Ron Paul newletter racism" attacks -- not saying your story is as unjustified as that it, just that it's resonating.)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Similar experiences?

My son was on a Jury recently.

Agents of the criminal State, known as Homeland Security, were called into action concerning a possible victim in a possible crime.

The victim claimed that she was the victim of verbal assault, terrorism, by the accused.

The accused, as far as my son on the jury could find out, may have said something to the affect that the person making the claim of injury was deserving of some punishment for being such a bitch.

The only evidence was hearsay, even according to the testimony of the person making the claim of having been injured.

My son had to fight against the grain to acquit the person being charged with a nebulous thought crime of nebulous terrorism.

The funny part here, get this please, is that Homeland Security was called into the investigation, and they had no interest in going after this supposed "terrorist," yet the "Trial" proceeded into "Court" at great expense, including having my son take time off of work to judge the case.

My son swayed the jury, with help from other "cooler heads" and the accused was not punished beyond the farce of guilt up to that point.

I was also, recently, asked to be on a Jury, and I volunteered to go through the process, through the Rapiscan radiation attack, and through the bogus swearing in nonsense, and I went past the bogus "bar" and sat in the supposed seat on the supposed ship, and when the supposed prosecutor asked me some idiotic question I made my declaration instead.

"We are here to avoid punishing an innocent man and at the same time we are here to avoid abandoning an innocent victim."

The judge, apparently, wanted me to stay, but both "law professors" (defense and offense) wanted nothing to do with me, so the judge told me to leave. I accepted the order to leave, having made my declaration of independence.

I am currently involved in the efforts to regain control of voluntary government in the following alliance:


If you would, please, check it out, and let me know your angle of view on it. I can appreciate such help from someone who, in my opinion, is obviously on the voluntary side of things.


TwelveOhOne's picture

Great news about your son!

Glad he was able to make an impact. WAHOR and all that. :)

I checked out the site. In one paragraph, it states "study onto itself" (should be "unto"); and in the next sentence, contains the site "www.FamilyGaurdian.com" -- this site does not exist (it's a typo), and when I fixed the typo, I got an insurance company; I'm not sure it's the resource that was intended.

Apart from that, I like the quotes, haven't watched any of the videos, and think that the information in the paragraph before those typos is exceptional -- demonstrate to the judge that if he acts wrongly, he can be put in a cage for 10 years, with people who he may have put there unconstitutionally -- and he will likely act appropriately, instead of wrongly.

"We are here to avoid punishing an innocent man and at the same time we are here to avoid abandoning an innocent victim."

Thank you for this! I need to commit it to memory. Take care!

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Defining pride

Yes, on my son, and I tried to get him to write down a report on the events because he had said something very interesting in his effort to sway the jurors who were all too ready to reach for punishment as a cure for their own lack of internal leadership.

My son said something to the effect of "Our job is not to disprove guilt, we are here to find out if the accused is guilty."

Unfortunately I've hacked up what he actually did say, in his own words, to me, and perhaps even those words were not exactly what he said to the other jurors.

In my view that was another case of reinforcement in my understanding that the next generation teaches the previous generation, not so much the other way around.

"Apart from that, I like the quotes, haven't watched any of the videos, and think that the information in the paragraph before those typos is exceptional -- demonstrate to the judge that if he acts wrongly, he can be put in a cage for 10 years, with people who he may have put there unconstitutionally -- and he will likely act appropriately, instead of wrongly."

The core concept involved in The National Liberty Alliance is "consent of the governed," so any confusions with wording would therefore nullify consent, IN FACT, so the FACT that there are people who use confusion to act aggressively, to use confusion to injure people, aught to clue anyone in on the FACT that such people are criminals, as those criminals define the meaning of crime by their actions, if not by their words, and that too is a confession, when their words are opposite their actions.

These ideas are not new, but these ideas (government by consent, or voluntary association) are effectively suppressed.

No man being above the law is the rule of law, which means that law is not invented by men, it is merely recognized, agreeably, by some men, some women, and even some children.

Insane people may happen to recognize rule of law, but that is reaching the limits of reason, and perhaps mere chance, randomness, is at work when an insane person behaves within the rule of law.

Rule of law can be understood as Natural Law, such that it is natural for someone attacked, in the process of being injured, for the defender to defend against further injury.

It is natural for a person witnessing the aggressive attack by someone upon someone to come to the defense of the person being injured by the person doing the attacking; and that natural law can be confused as "collectivism," when all it really is is common sense, as the attacker once done with the victim may then turn on the next victim, so the defender is merely calculating the odds of having, at least, the attacker preoccupied with the present victim, and therefore less able to focus all power upon his next victim, so that would be the time to exert defensive power, while the current victim is still alive, still defending, and still adding to the total power of defense.

I suppose my tendency to write is often overdone.


Is this...

...better approached by dropping the word 'government' altogether and just thinking in terms of people with agreements/associations/alliances, voluntary or involuntary? I don't see how you can ever escape involuntary situations emerging in a world where 'the weak are meat, and the strong do eat'. Could a purely voluntarist society really stay that way? How?

Well, we certianly can't escape involuntary situations

if we endorse them. Look at all the people who flip out around here - the meeting place of so many brilliant minds - if one speaks out against the involuntary situation called government. I think its deception has been engrained in our minds and is tough to overcome, but once you do it feels so freeing. You no longer have to apologize and rationalize an obvious wrong.

There certainly are questions, and I don't think a voluntary society would come without challenges, but I don't see that as an excuse to endorse theft and coercion.

PS I agree that you could drop the word gov and go with involuntary situations, but part of my point is that the gov is an involuntary organization and if you don't agree with involuntary associations you should also not agree with an involuntary gov..

When a voluntary...

...alliance is formed, who determines the rules by which they will choose to use force against others to defend their rights (or aggressively attack, if they don't follow NAP as a group)? Isn't such debate and determination of rules a form of government, even if its members are free to come and go as they choose? Like the Ents having an Entmoot to decide how to respond to Saruman. :)

Separate thought -- I guess would you consider the Mafia or a cult a 'government', if they don't let people leave once they're in?

When voluntary alliances are

When voluntary alliances are formed the individual parties agree upon the conditions, voluntarily. If they chose to aggressively attack others, then I disagree with their actions and will stand against them, but that is an issue separate from the existence of government. What we see now is those parties use the governments force deceptively and at the taxpayer expense (like how all wars are for money interest)... at least if there was no government we wouldn't have to pay for it.

Separate thought -- I guess would you consider the Mafia or a cult a 'government', if they don't let people leave once they're in?

No, just because the government is an involuntary entity doesn't mean that all involuntary entities are governments.

Also, these definitions are my perspectives, if someone believes a government includes an governing body that won't exhort force on people if they don't consent then we are just arguing over definitions, but that isn't the government of the USA, and I don't know of any examples where that has been the case.

Keep this in mind:

"Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Matthew 26:52

crietmann's picture

Pragmatic Anarcho-capitalism.

is how I'd best describe where I'm at - and most of you have years of "awakening" on me, so please bear with me. I agree completely with the ideas and ideals of a voluntary society, I believe that there is no need for government yet exactly how do we get there? That's where I'm sort of stuck.

I think a two prong approach is what I'm taking - while doing everything I can in my personal life to live without force or coercion I know that there is the government - at the local, state and federal level that will throw me in a cage for a variety of reasons. So I work to change it - to decrease it's power until it can no longer enforce what it believes it has to enforce. That requires for now that I obey some rules while working to unravel it.

I don't consider myself a minarchist, or a 20% statist - I believe that we have to work to educate and change minds, and work within the existing system to tear it down. Perhaps not in my lifetime but working towards that is in my opinion time well spent.

Flame away!

Please "Like" Prismstop.com on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/Prismstop

Or visit us at http://www.prismstop.com to protect your whole home and mobile devices from identity thieves, hackers, government officials and other criminals.

@Prismstop on

Two videos worth the time.

Larken Rose
If You Were King


Robert Higgs
Warfare, Welfare, and the State


I was hoping...

...the cartoon would continue and illustrate how those individuals without any rulers would deal with the thugs, invaders, murderers, etc., and what keeps a new ruler from emerging. Lots of great points in it, though.

How would we deal with things like food and

iPhones, if government didn't provide them? If government does not try to stop it, if there is a demand, there is a supply.


...I'm not saying that government would be necessary in order to defend oneself, just that I would be curious to see how the voluntarist society would successfully crush any attempt by someone to become ruler(s). Would those little guys in the cartoon be running around with their own spears and ganging up on anyone they suspected of having ulterior motives of emerging as a ruler, to nip it in the bud? Who sets the rules for how such people are dealt with?

I have a feeling that some minimal, limited 'government'/'alliance' is a necessary evil, kind of like violent self-defense is sometimes necessary, even though not desired. But I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Do you not think that if a volintaryist society

were what people mostly wanted, that an attempt to reinstate a monopoly of force would fail? It seems to me that what we are trying to do is persuade people that initiated violence is wrong, and then go from there.

Depends maybe...

...on how skilled the perpetrators might be in persuading others that there is some fearsome threat or urgent matter that requires the normal principles to be 'temporarily' set aside for the 'good of the community.'

TwelveOhOne's picture

They haven't been very skilled

We've seen through:

* Aurora Theatre
* Sikh Temple
* Sandy Hook
* Hurricane Sandy
* 911 (which took significantly longer for most, but was a strong turning point)
* Syria
* Cash for Clunkers
* Many more...

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)


...but I'm sure a would-be despot or master or feudal lord or domineering member of a group would always find some weaker individuals to prey on, either through psychological manipulation or brute force. Even if your particular village is strongly resistant to such things, there's no guarantee that corruption won't seep into another. It's like Sauron -- defeated once, you still have to be ready to face another wave of gathering darkness down the road. And there is always a risk when confronting evil, destroying the ring, that some in your fellowship will want to use the ring of power themselves, justifying its use as 'for good'.

But a voluntarist society, I agree is an ideal to strive for in every way we can. I'm not against that; just think it will forever be a fragile thing if it ever comes to be in this world. Kind of the message of 'Cloud Atlas' -- every era, locale will be faced with such struggle of the strong against the weak, of Love against hate, of Liberty vs tyranny. It will never be easy.

I am confused

How do you defend the Constitution yet also say there should be no government? If you are saying government should not exist at all than we would have no way to defend our rights other than vigilantism. Rights do not exist unless they are protected by the individual through arms AND through the Law.

Just because you have govenrment does not mean you must use aggressive force. Obviously force is sometimes necessary to defend one's self, community, and nation. The Constitution is written to expressly limited the powers of Federal Government to the defense of liberty.

open your mind

Jefferson mentioned that he thought the Constitution was too much!!

What if it was?? Just use the Declaration of Independence, which IS outside of the Bible, the greatest document in human history.

Forget the Constitution. IT was too constrictive!!

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Eternal vigilance!

But a government that has a monopoly on force demonizes the vigilante.

Even the definition given by Merriam Webster is distorted in favor of government protecting the monopoly of force.

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

No government is required to adhere to the bill of rights.

No government is prohibited from respecting the Bill of Rights.

Free includes debt-free!