-28 votes

Leaving Paul, (USA style) Libertarianism

Hey guys,

I'm hoping you'll let me get this off my chest. I was once a Ron Paul supporter (donated many times) and poster here on the dailypaul, but I quietly left after the newsletters came to light in early 2008. A couple years later I left (USA style) Libertarianism for good.

There were many reasons, but a few concepts and ideas really shook me:

1) Private land. If someone were to buy the Grand Canyon, I'd have to be okay with them doing whatever they want with their property - including filling it and turning into a parking lot.

2) Science. I come from a family of scientists and too much of Paul's beliefs fly in the face of hard data: Economics (Mises-style Austrian School is proudly anti-empiricism), Climatology, and any sort of empirical study done on the effects of welfare. Philosophy is great, but when it butts heads with science, I gotta go with science.

3) The first libertarian. I was drawn to the USA style of libertarianism because I saw it as the most anti-authoritarian political philosophy, and I'm nothing if not anti-authority. Then I learned that the first Libertarian (Joseph Déjacque) was also a Communist, and in most of the world the terms are interchangeable. That was my introduction to original Libertarianism (called left-libertarianism here), where all hierarchies are called into question: race, religion, gender, wealth, as well as the state. No authority was safe. My mind was blown.

I'm mostly writing this to myself 6 years ago: The word "freedom" doesn't have to include your boss spying on 80% of your waking life. The word "freedom" doesn't have to include someone shooting you for walking off the public trail. The word "freedom" doesn't have to leave anyone dying in the streets.

Thanks for letting me vent.
- FF

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Austrians love the calculation problem, but there's little to no evidence for its existence for a couple reasons.


"Austrians have overused the economic calculation argument. In the absence of detailed empirical evidence showing that this particular problem is the most important one, it is just another argument out of hundreds on the list of arguments against socialism." - Bryan Caplan (conservative economist)


Many prices in a market economy are created by quasi-monopolies, and therefore are simply administered prices.


Market economies are terribly inefficient. I know this sounds radical to a libertarian, but a market economy has no way to judge externalities such as cost to society.

Example: Many private airline carriers don't circulate the air through HEPA filters any longer, in order to cut costs in the name of "efficiency". This results in diseases and germs being passed between passengers. The cost to society of tens of thousands of additional sick people doesn't affect the airline, since the individuals will bear those costs.

Same with gas companies and leaded gasoline - despite Tetraethyllead causing a generation of Americans to become criminally insane (link), the gas companies fought the government tooth and nail to keep it legal in the name of "efficiency".

Ban Everything


Hahah... He didn't write it!

Do you really honestly think Ron Paul is a racist? He is the complete opposite.

Ron Paul said he's taken

Ron Paul said he's taken moral responsibility for it. That's enough for me.

Ban Everything

Have you read any of the letters?

Can you cite which ones offend?

Free includes debt-free!

He takes responsibility for

He takes responsibility for not knowing what was in the newsletters of which bears his name. There's a big difference.

Get lost

troll. Our President right now is a racist.

The most racist and divisive

The most racist and divisive president I've ever seen.


You believed the newsletters. I am sorry, and I may be wrong, but you seem to be a troll, and not a very good one. As for your other points, I can only question your intellect. Sorry, just my honest thoughts. Sounds like rubbish.

A little history for you

In the 80's, Murray Rothbard laid out a strategy for the type of racism you see in RP's Newsletters in his essay, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement"

This isn't secret, just rarely mentioned. Having failed to capture the attention of academics, Rothbard went to the other end of the spectrum and called for libertarians to "outreach to rednecks" and paints KKK wizard David Duke as the model for this new strategy.

Pat Buchanan executed this plan to near perfection, turning it into a successful political career, and Ron Paul's newsletters played along as well.

It's wonderful that Paul and many other libertarians have dropped this hateful stategy, even Rothbard eventually denounced his "Paleolibertarianism" but the ugly history is there.

Ban Everything

I defended you above, but I

I defended you above, but I guess here is where we have to part company. There was nothing racist either in the tabloid newsletters, or in Buchanan's works, or in Rothbard. They may have been wrong on some things, but they were right about the social impact of multiculturalism.

You make lots of appeals to empiricism and realism, but you seem to abandon them when it comes to multiculturalism. Do you really suppose your "Nordic model" economics is going to have much longevity in a balkanized Scandinavia? Social capital and contributions to public goods collapse in multiculturalism.

See http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

I think this is where your left-leaning tendencies smack up against reality and will do you in. You need to drop the egalitarianism if you want to keep the realism. The humor value in watching the liberal European model contend with non assimilating immigrants will be high, but won't quite compensate for the damage.

The Buchanan/Rothbard attitudes toward multiculturalism are only controversial in the West where the Left is running around looking for things to set on fire.

Outside Europe, North America and the Anglosphere, for example Japan or Singapore, the absence of multiculturalism and open borders ideology is the normal state of affairs. I don't see any European or American leftists complaining about it. They only seem interested in dismantling homogeneity and social cohesion of their own home countries, as they suffer from some kind of emotional guilt complex or psychological trauma.

All your economic and environmental concerns will not survive your multiculturalism, but I don't doubt you'll make the sacrifice of the rational to the sacred irrational. In that sense, you are just like those you condemn in your post.

First paragraph was a dead

First paragraph was a dead give away that your'e an idiot or a disinfo agent trying to muddy the water. Actually idiot would apply to either of your identity's.

I have to be somewhat

I have to be somewhat skeptical that you were in fact a part of the Ron Paul movement in 2008 and you have not in fact been a leftist or social democrat all along. To ingratiate yourselves to us you claim to once have been "one of us" who has "seen the light". I do this myself when trying to engage others on political forums.

But I feel that a lot of your concerns have been authoritatively answered in the Austrian and libertarian literature. You must have been a bandwagoner in the 2008 days who never went deep into the philosophic underpinnings of the movement.

To go through your points one at a time:

1. Regarding property rights and the environment, you should read Rothbard's account of property, ecology and environmental protection. Start with the chapter "Conservation, Ecology, and Growth" from "For a New Liberty". It might blow your mind to discover that the libertarian tradition has been far stricter in their rigorous protection of the environment through property rights.

If one cares about environmental protection and pollution control, then one must denounce all State ownership of property. Only a strict interpretation of property rights and a legal framework that sees pollution and emissions as an indefensible violation of the property of others can tackle this problem. Almost universally, the most polluted properties are "owned" by the State and thus owned by nobody. The Tragedy of the Commons plays out repeatedly throughout history until the dwindling resource is privatized and private individuals gain a vested interest in maintaining the capital value of the resource.

As Rothbard outlines, it was State intervention during the Industrial Revolution that decided that since industry is beneficial, then some pollution is acceptable for the greater good. Therefore corporations were insulated from having to pay the costs of their pollution. Before then, nuisance laws allowed that individuals were due compensation for damages from polluting companies. Therefore, lawsuits were common for noise pollution, emissions pollution and other sorts of property violations. The companies that used production methods that caused greater pollution had to spend far more in legal fees to defend themselves in court, and had to compensate the victims of their pollution. In such an environment, increasing numbers would invest in antipollution technology and lower emission production methods as they would become more economically viable.

But no corporation would bother with anti pollution methods of production since all their competitors would be using the cheapest production techniques which inevitably cause greater emissions. Therefore the ecologically minded business would be put out of business by his competitors.

It is important for you to know that this sorry state of affairs has nothing to do with libertarian policies, but rather is caused by State intervention and the complete rejection of private property rights in the Rothbardian tradition.

2. Regarding science, this critique shows a complete misunderstanding of not only Austrian economics but the libertarian tradition. It has long been argued by central planners and authoritarians that their method of oppression is highly scientific and empirical. They trot out PhD waving court apologists for the regime that flash comparative analysis graphs and an endless series of charts that are indecipherable to the average person. There is nothing they desire more than for you to shirk away and bow down to their towering intellect.

The reality is that so often, these State sponsored scientists and economists are seeking tenure and government grants and thus have a strong temptation to produce the research that favors a political agenda. Sure there is good science that can be mixed up in this cesspool of competing political agendas and the private interests that fight over the stolen money that the State dolls out.

But to argue that the libertarian, who finds this whole business of corrupt influence peddling to be obscene and deserving of intense scrutiny, is opposed to science is quite an absurd claim.

Regarding Austrian economics rejecting empiricism, this is an old canard that is regurgitated by people who really know nothing of the scope and nature of the discipline of economics. I recommend you listen to a recent episode of the Tom Woods show where they discuss in length this misconception.

Every discipline has a method appropriate to its subject. Economics studies human action and its effects. All the Austrians are saying is that when it comes to human beings, as a prerequisite to any sort of empiricism, we can deduce certain logical axioms that cannot be refuted about human nature itself. Axioms such as: Humans Act. Humans have unlimited wants and scarce resources. Voluntary interactions occur only when two parties have reverse preference orders. And so forth.

This is hardly "anti science". In reality, it is the only possible way to determine the proper scope of any rational economic analysis. If you misunderstand human nature and instead assume that human beings are merely cogs in some giant machinery of central planning, you will ALWAYS go astray. Empirical studies are meaningless if the fundamental assumptions underlying them are incorrect and go unchallenged.

Furthermore, the libertarian philosophy believes in the free market precisely because we recognize the limitations of the individual mind. We are not ashamed to say that we don't know how humans will collectively, voluntarily, work together to solve our common human problems in the future. What we DO know is that voluntary interactions in the market harness the collective intelligence of millions of individuals to yield outcomes that are quantitatively and qualitatively superior in every way to what any central planners could accomplish, no matter their intelligence or sincerity.

This is not a sign of rejecting science as libertarians but rather a sign of the highest form of intelligence. I believe it was Socrates who once said that it is only the wisest of people who are able to grasp just how much they don't know.

As a final point, it seems to me like you completely fail to grasp the importance and magnitude of philosophy in improving the human condition. Philosophy should NEVER take a backseat to science.

Some of the worst atrocities in history have been completely scientific and empirical. Eugenics is incredibly scientifically rigorous. A little over half a century our government ran tests where they injected black people with Syphilis without their knowledge. And believe me, they were incredibly empirical and scientific.

Philosophy serves the purpose of discovering moral axioms that should guide human behavior. And the libertarian tradition is incredibly rigorous in its discovery and application of consistent moral principles to human interactions.

The Non Aggression Axiom is a principle that is literally the cornerstone of civilization itself. Human beings literally HAD to voluntarily agree to respect the property of their neighbor and refrain from violently assaulting the innocent for us to move from a barbaric subsistence existence to a life of social cooperation and the division of labor. Then we had to determine a means of addressing those antisocial individuals who reject common law and insist upon violating the person and property of the innocent.

So human beings had to, in sufficient numbers, voluntarily accept the non aggression axiom for us as a species to create modern civilization itself.

What transpired, however, is that the minority who still desired to inflict aggression upon the innocent for personal gain, decided to form a protection racket whereby they could lend an air of credibility and legitimacy to what would otherwise be seen as socially undesirable petty criminality.

So over the centuries a great deal of propaganda has been unleashed on the public, with a great deal of help from the intellectuals on the State's pay, which has convinced people that the State is subject to entirely different moral laws that the rest of human kind. The State should be permitted to fight wars, to murder people and call it "capital punishment", to steal and call it taxation and so forth.

The libertarian is showing that this is a very dangerous moral inconsistency that cannot be rationally justified. We insist upon moral consistency.

Those who are not philosophically literate will see the adherence to a set of moral principles with consistency to be simplistic. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

And finally, to your third point:

You are referring to Noam Chomsky's conception of libertarianism. This is sometimes referred to as left anarchism, as these sort of leftists are also opposed to the State. So far so good. However, there is an inconsistency to these sorts of people and that includes their concept of property rights.

Because I don't have the time or space to go into this now, I recommend the following article VERY highly:


The author basically dismantles the Chomsky style "left libertarianism" as a path to economic ruin and a destruction of the division of labor and the organization of property rights which has allowed the increased productivity which has lifted humanity out of squalor and into increasing comfort and abundance.

So, please read that article. I would be interested in hearing your response to the arguments presented.

Your simplistic view of left libertarianism, that it is more of a defense of freedeom as it calls into question all sorts of centers of authority rather than American libertarianism which only criticizes the State has some appeal.

But it is wrong to imply that libertarians only criticize the State. We are equally concerned with preventing the initiation of force wherever it might be. We are equally concerned with private crime, rape and murder as we are with State violence. And a libertarian legal system would provide stricter and more effective punishment for ANY violators of the non aggression principle.

But I cannot see how the Chomsky idea of social organization can exist without initiating force on anyone else. If, on the other hand, left libertarians are content to respect the rights of others and they organize themselves in society voluntarily, then they are indispensable allies and can be considered true defenders of liberty.

You claim that the original libertarians were basically Communists. It is indeed possible for a person to be a voluntary Communist. For example, you might indeed have the opinion that the employer / employee relationship is inherently exploitative and that every worker would be better off owning the means of production.

There are two ways of accomplishing this goal. On the one hand, you can voluntarily organize with like minded individuals and buy some land and start a factory. You can spread your ideas and encourage other workers to do the same. If your views are persuasive, more and more workers will form voluntary communes where there is no exploitation and everyone shares the profits equally.

This is entirely consistent with voluntarism. The other method is to initiate violence to prevent a worker from trading his labor for wages or to steal the property of an entrepreneur.

This cannot be morally justified. And it certainly is NOT libertarian.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it left "libertarianism" in the Chomsky tradition will NOT leave those of us in the American libertarian tradition alone to voluntarily interact on the market through the division of labor. From my understanding, they WILL initiate coercion to mold society in certain ways.

I'll end with those comments. This is probably the longest single comment in the history of this website. But I encourage you to stay and have a discussion. You could learn a lot and I hope you don't shy away from defending your views. I certainly won't shy away from defending what I believe is the only morally justified system of human organization.

Take care.

Good reply!

So you're calling me a socialist operative who was undercover on the dailypaul forums for 6 years? Don't rat me out to McCarthy!

Really though, there are groups on reddit for exlibertarians, we do exist!

1) I like any libertarian brave enough to address pollution and environmental destruction, and I agree corporations should be the ones to pay the costs of their damage. No issues there. However, when an animal goes extinct, who do we take to court? Who gets to own the Ogallala aquifer that brings water to the entire great plains? When the Ogallala aquifer runs out and the nation starves, who do we sue?

2a) (mistrust of scientific consensus) Assuming scientific data is bogus because scientists want tenure (or money or fame) isn't addressing the science at all, it's attacking the scientist. In logic we call this ad hominem. When you find a flaw in their methodology, or you can't duplicate their results, then you expose a fraud.

2b) (Austrian School & empiricism) The only problem with anything derived from an axiom is that it's only as good as the logic that derived it, and the axiom itself. "Human beings act" - true, but so does a ferris wheel. There's an incredibly large set of things that act.

In short, words are nice and all, but I'll take numbers and data with my economics.

3) (left-libertarian ideology) I'm not the guy to talk to here, as I'm not well read in anarchist literature. I can't tell you the difference between a "voluntary socialist" and a "anarcho-mutualist" let alone an "anarcho-syndicalist" without resorting to wikipedia. I'm much more familiar with right-wing libertarianism.

I didn't come here to win anyone to my side, as I honestly don't have one anymore, unless you consider "not libertarian" a side. I think left-libertarianism and anarchism are very interesting, but I haven't read all that much yet. I'm amazed at the variety and number of anti-state political philosophies, because when I was a libertarian I called everyone who didn't agree with me a "statist".

Anyway, to try to answer your last question, I don't believe Chomsky believes in a "coercive" society, though I'm fairly sure a society ruled by property he'd consider as coercive as I do.

Here's his quick explanation of Anarchism,

"[Anarchism] seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency." - Chomsky

Ban Everything


...thanks! :)

JRodefeld, It's LysanderSpooner from the ThomHartmann forums

As usual, your reply to the OP is cogent and well-written. I would like to add that it is illogical to reject a philosophy because one of its adherents does something morally objectionable or is hypocritical. I'm not saying Ron Paul is either of those. The newsletter story was a hit piece.

P.S. I'm done as of today with the Hartmann forums. I'm tired of the mischaracterizations of libertarianism as well as the refusal to follow logically a line of reasoning.

Cyril's picture


Being able to append a zero would be nice, actually:

Wish I could +10 this one above.

For, indeed... if that doesn't help the OP to grasp much, much more accurate conceptions than what his post transpires about what I like to call liberty, freedom, responsibility, self-reliance, then I have absolutely no clue whatsoever what else could ever do.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Very good on this.


everything else

This reminds me of that old quote (I don't know who said it first), Capitalism is the worst, except everything else.
So, if you hate the idea of private citizens owning the lands, who do you think should? And if your answer is government, you never were a freedom loving american.

So when you "left" liberty, where did you "go"?

I'm speechless. You, my friend, do not understand the true nature of government

Exactly, his complaints with individuals

can only exacerbated by the interference of government or as a staple of "community ownership" the "tragedy of the commons" is an apt example of why it doesn't work.

He was never attracted to "libertarianism" because he never understood it to begin with. He simply believed that this was anti authoritarian and therefore good, he delved no deeper than a cursory glance of the subject matter.

He left Ron Paul over something petty the media used to attack him so we know he has no conviction, because he would so willingly leave someone who he believed represented him on a baseless attack?

His attack on libertarianism being "anti science" is just a baseless accusation, the left commonly uses on anyone that's remotely conservative. Just like the "you're a racist" comments they are nothing more than ad hominem at best. That's not to say there aren't ignorant people that claim a conservative label but to say the whole of the community is "anti science" is ad hominem.

I learned that the first Libertarian (Joseph Déjacque) was also a Communist, and in most of the world the terms are interchangeable.

el oh el. Dejacque could hardly be called the "first libertarian" he was simply the first one to use the term. Was the first "Gay man" a homosexual or just a happy guy? Terms change over time.

it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature. -Dejacque

The idea that you don't own the product of your labor means you can not own yourself. Self ownership is a key tenet of libertarianism, if not THE key tenet. The individual is what is important, not the group.

The earliest ideals of libertarianism go all the way back to lao tzu.
Reference: http://mises.org/daily/1967

However, the first person that comes to my mind as a real representative for the ideals of libertarianism is John Locke. Having his faults, it's clear either of these people would come before Dejacque when describing libertarianism the world over.

The word "freedom" doesn't have to include your boss spying on 80% of your waking life.

Nope, sure doesn't.
You're perfectly free to never work for anyone.

The word "freedom" doesn't have to include someone shooting you for walking off the public trail.

Not sure what he's getting at here. It could be gun control, could be authoritarianism. Each equally as easily shot down. (pun intended)

The word "freedom" doesn't have to leave anyone dying in the streets.

Nope, people are always free to help others and without the threat of government less people will die in the streets of our country and others.

If he's writing himself six years ago, perhaps he should tell himself to actually research libertarianism and not discard it without doing any kind of research on the core philosophy, minds, and ideals.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Cyril's picture

Churchill's was quite eloquent and accurate, imo (quote)

Churchill (note, though: whom I'm no great fan of) had a nice one on this, at least, in that same spirit:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.

The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

well said

I'm curious to hear his answers to those questions too.

Cyril's picture


1) This is much hypothetical, and if someone would feel so important, smart, original, and rich enough to think they can do that, then on a free market (as opposed to a super complex system of public and private cronies and lobbies, as today's) - where everybody else gets a chance to gauge and decide for themselves what are the values of things (natural or otherwise) - I can assure you that such a person would have A HECK OF A TIME trying to convince the courts, juries, and judges (or: partners and business affiliates) that THEY HAVE the best idea vs. the legions other communities (or: clients and competitors) suing him/her (or: funding vs. competing with him/her) SIMULTANEOUSLY.

2) Faith or religion, and metaphysics or philosophy are very much orthogonal to all hard sciences and to many others even if "softer", IMO, and the vast majority of serious, unbiased scientists know that wrt. their scientific domain(s) - so I really don't get the point you're trying to make

3) Déjacque, Proudhon, and others were much confused as to what "Liberty" actually was meant to convey, and their abstract attempts at marrying it with anything close to whatever forms of collectivism they had a taste for - and often much confined in their abstract language, btw - was very much like trying to square the circle; Bastiat, or Constant, or Thoreau, on the other hand, got "Liberty" right.

Déjacque's idea of a so-called "libertarianism" definitely feels to me what the worse sweetener (that tastes like crap eventually) can be to the amateur of natural cane sugar.

I don't know what's your problem with bosses and/or authority at the workplace to get the job that you're paid for to be done eventually (and that's none of my business), but AFAIC, I'm no genius, no big, and with very average charisma, and yet... Just by working hard on anticipating on my domain and focusing what I love to do the most and where I can also be the most performant/productive, I've always dealt with my employers on a strictly contractual basis - and by me leaving them first for my career advancement, 8 times out of 9.

Either I'm very, very, very, lucky or it might be that people tend sometimes to misinterpret the exact nature and role of authority at the workplace (for what I noticed, anyway).


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


Love it.

When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman

Normally i would say that, "you're an idiot", but not this time.

1. China owns our Federal Parks, and Saudi Arabia owns our ports. But, I understand your hyperbole. The point of privately owned land means that you CAN'T pollute it because it may hurt another's property. Think dumping into rivers.

2. "Science" is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It's subjective. It changes all the time. Also, you don't understand economics, climatology, or welfare. Philosophy and science go hand in hand.

3. Comparing Libertarianism to Joseph Déjacque, is what we in critical thinking call, an association fallacy. Fail.

The word freedom includes you confronting your boss, protecting yourself, and choosing—voluntarily—to help someone on the streets.

Freedom also gives me the right to say, "Hey! Don't let the proverbial front door hit you in the ass as you're leaving"

Have a nice day. :)

When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman

and one more thing...

While we're specifically speaking of Freedom and Liberty, which are popular now, in todays world, we must try not to speak of it generally, bringing in arguments about the "people*", who lived here before we slaughtered them. Libertarians would never do that today.

*The term "Indian", and "Native American" is highly offensive to the indigenous people who inhabited the west. They called themselves, the "people".

When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman

Keep going

Voluntaryism awaits.

maybe you shoul read some rothbard


where do you stand on the NAP?


This is precisely why NAP has to go away...

It is errant and it confuses people.
The intent of NAP is actually Initiation of Nonconsensual Harm or INH.
As in, do not initiate nonconsensual harm.

I'm so glad my post hasn't

I'm so glad my post hasn't been deleted! This community is as friendly as I remember, thanks guys.

I see the NAP as something that presents itself as rock-solid and sounds great. "thou shalt not initiate force" Who wouldn't agree with that?

But as most of us know, it's not so simple: It takes some serious mental gymnastics to define "fraud" as the initiation of force, which has never been convincing to me. Fraud is bad, but does it have to be defined as force?

(Note that Rothbard and Rand usually say "force and/or fraud" in their writing - even they have trouble connecting the two)

Also, claiming land as property when some people have no concept of property (i.e. Native Americans) and shooting them when they occupy it is considered "retaliatory force", as well as the fact that there isn't an acre of peacefully acquired land on this earth. It's just not as simple as it seems when you put it to real-world problems.

Ban Everything

again the nap fails

do not initiate nonconsensual harm- is the intent of the mislabled NAP. initiating force is not even a factor. The NAP confuses people and it has to go.

Sorry the philosphy hasn't matured enough yet, but it is evoloving everyday with smart people challenging established beliefs and replacing them with truer and truer versions.

Like the NAP now being found to be errant.

The initiating of nonconsensual harm includes all acts that can harm another against their will. consider it and take it with you on your journey. Maybe you will find your way back one day.