Universal Morality: A Proposition

Sometimes the greatest plans can be derailed by a single word. One of my earliest articles was entitled “Proving Libertarian Morality,” which was my attempt to provide a rational and universal justification for a theory of ethics, and which has proved thoroughly confusing for some people, all because of one single word.

I wrote this article in the first place because it always struck me as odd that we libertarians are fascinated by right and wrong, and pour prodigious effort into arguing that society or people should do this or that, and yet our opinions rarely rest on a universal foundation of ethical reasoning. If pressed, we appeal to “the greatest good for the greatest number,” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or state that economic inefficiencies are bad, taxation is evil, violence is wrong, government power corrupts and so on.

Without strict ethical reasoning, however, these statements remain fundamentally as baseless as “government is good,” “social programs help the poor,” and “unicorns are pretty.” To really change the world, we must present more than just opinions, more than mere assertions. The great challenge in ethical debating is possessing the leverage to radically extend people’s opinions about core moral issues. This is easier than it sounds, since a good philosopher does not change people’s minds, but rather just logically expands the principles they already accept. Newton didn’t change people’s minds about their everyday experiences of the tangible world – he just extended those everyday principles to the universal. The force that drops the apple also moves the moon.

The same is true when debating morality. Have you ever met anyone who argued that murder is the highest moral good, or that rape is a man's best course of action, or that the Golden Rule is: steal everything you can get your hands on, all the time? Of course not. Most people already consider violence and theft to be morally wrong. However, as morality gets more abstract, it gets harder and harder for people to maintain their consistency. I can’t even count the number of times people have agreed with me that “theft is wrong,” but who then instantly become baffled when I reply “therefore taxation is wrong.” It’s the same with the military. No one has any trouble with the equation: Man + murder = evil. Throw in one little inconsequential variable, however, and most people get very confused. Man + murder + green costume = ?zzttz¿¡[short circuit] um, national hero?

Newton’s challenge was not to convince people that apples fall down, but that the same force that moves apples also moves everything else. Extending the principle of gravity from immediate experience to interplanetary motion is quite a mental feat – and even more is demanded from libertarians! Our real challenge is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus if we lack a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles, we are unlikely to gain much ground. I believe that our lack of a compelling argument for universal principles is one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but universal consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking. Everyone thinks that apples and planets move according to separate – and probably opposing – principles.

For quite some time, I sweated my brain dry working on this problem. The argument that I came up with was, in essence:

1. Morality can be defined as Universally Preferred Behavior (i.e. a moral theory is that which proposes which behaviors should be preferred – or proscribed – for all peoples in all places at all times.)
2. For a proposition to be defined as moral, it must advocate a logically consistent set of Universally Preferred Behavior, such as “don’t steal.”
3. Anyone who argues against Universally Preferred Behavior must do so using clear language, arguments, logic and evidence – all based on the principle that truth is better than falsehood.
4. Clear language, argument, logic and evidence – and a universal preference for truth over falsehood – are all examples of Universally Preferred Behavior. Therefore a man can only argue against Universally Preferred Behavior by using Universally Preferred Behavior, since anyone who argues is acting on the premise that clear language is universally preferred to gibberish, logic to illogic, and truth to falsehood.
5. Since Universally Preferred Behavior cannot be opposed without accepting the premise of Universally Preferred Behavior, Universally Preferred Behavior must stand as a valid concept.

The argument follows the same general lines as arguments for logic itself. Logic as a methodology for validating the consistency of arguments is irrefutable, since logic can only be dismissed either on a whim, which is invalid, or using logic, which relies on the validity of logic in the first place.

Arguing against Universally Preferred Behavior is like shouting into somebody’s ear that sound does not exist, or phoning someone to tell him that phones are a fantasy. The argument self-destructs on deployment.

A sample argument runs thus:

• Person A: People should not steal.
• Person B: There is no such thing as morality, since objective standards do not exist.
• So I should not believe that theft is wrong, because no objective standards exist?
• That’s right.
• Is it merely your opinion that no objective standards exist, or is it objectively true that no standards exist?
• It is objectively true that no standards exist.
• And is it merely your opinion that I should not believe in morality because no objective standards exist, or is objectively true?
• It is objectively true you should not believe in morality, because no objective standards exist.
• And what criteria have you used to separate mere opinion from objective truth?
• Reason.
• So reason, then, is the objective standard by which you have determined that no objective standards exist?
• [minor forehead detonation]

A standard argument against proofs of universal morality is that morality does not exist in the real world. That is true, of course, but so what? The scientific method doesn’t exist in the real world either; neither do logic or numbers – does that mean that science and math are utterly subjective, and that any old opinion goes? Of course not. It is exactly the same with morality. Moral theories must pass the test of logical consistency, just as theories in science or mathematics. If you submit a mathematical paper, and on the first page you assume that 2+2=5, rare would be the individual who would read any further! Any sane reviewer would simply circle that error, hand it back and tell you to start over.

The same is true for moral propositions. No one has to engage in moral theorizing – just as people are free to read chicken entrails rather than use the scientific method – but the moment that somebody corrects you on anything, he is acting on the premise that you are bound by some standard of truth or behavior beyond mere whim – and so he accepts Universally Preferred Behavior. If someone tells you that truth is better than falsehood, then he is telling you that it is universally better to believe things that are true than to believe things that are false. The moment that someone invokes a universal preference, he is instantly bound by the requirements of logical consistency. Thus no man can argue against morality – Universally Preferred Behavior – without using morality.

If I tell you that it is better to believe things that are false, my argument self-destructs, because either (a) I am lying, which means you should believe me, but that my argument is the opposite of truth, or (b) I am telling the truth, in which case I am immediately contradicting my stated principle that it is better to believe false things.

The same contradiction occurs if I argue against the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership. If I open my mouth and use my larynx and tongue to express an argument against self-ownership, my argument immediately self-destructs, since I am exercising self-ownership to argue that self-ownership is invalid, impossible, or immoral.

A Way Forward?

In my view, it is essential that libertarians work to develop and communicate ironclad arguments for the universality and consistency of morality itself. If we take a rational and scientific approach to the challenges of moral theories, we shall start to get real traction in the world of ideas, and elevate ourselves about the yammering hordes of debaters who pound tables and bellow that their opinions are just somehow more correct than everyone else’s.

The disservice that I have done to this idea is using the word “preferred” rather than “preferable.” I would like to now officially change my definition of morality from Universally Preferred Behavior to Universally Preferable Behavior. My use of the former phrase has confused a large number of people, who think that I am defining morality as “behaviors that are universally preferred by all people at all times,” and thus using a descriptive and not prescriptive definition. I was rather surprised by this misunderstanding (though I can see how it could be derived linguistically), since it is quite obvious that many people have many different opinions about what is moral – not to mention that if everyone in the whole world had the same opinion about what was right, we would scarcely need a science of morality! So to all of those who have written to me to tell me that people do not have the same opinions about what is good, I can only agree, and add that people’s existing moral preferences are irrelevant to the science of morality, just as people’s existing beliefs that the world was flat was irrelevant to the physical sciences.

Three Hurdles

To further develop the science of ethics, I propose that any moral theory must surmount three basic hurdles. The first hurdle is, of course, logical consistency. I have spoken about this at length before, so I will just touch on it here. By “logical consistency,” I mean that, at the very least, any theory proposing Universally Preferable Behavior must not be self-contradictory. If a moral theory proposes that “everyone must steal,” it immediately self-destructs, since stealing is only of value if a thief gets to keep the proceeds of his theft. No man would steal a wallet if he knew that it would be stolen from him immediately afterwards (and the spectacle of a world full of people constantly stealing from each other would be rather ludicrous to contemplate). Thus a thief only steals – or violates property rights – because he wishes to exercise his property rights over the stolen item. Implicit in the action of stealing is thus a simultaneous rejection and affirmation of property rights, which is how we know that theft as a moral rule is both logically – and therefore morally – wrong.

Logical consistency also requires categorical uniformity. A physicist who argues that all objects which are heavier than air fall towards the ground neatly deals with both rocks and helium balloons – but he cannot say that one rock falls down, but another rock that is also heaver than air falls up. In other words, opposite actions require opposing properties – in this case, that all rocks are heavier than air, and so fall down, while helium balloons are lighter than air, and thus float up. The opposing property is: lighter than air versus heavier than air.

In the same manner, a moral theory which proposes that murder is wrong, but that it is morally right for soldiers to murder, immediately fails the test of logical consistency. Putting on a green costume does not change a man’s moral nature, any more than painting a rock makes it lighter than air. (The same, of course, goes for all manner of statist occupations, such as policeman, politician, prison guard etc.)

On the other hand, where objective physical differences do exist, such as mental retardation or childhood, moral theories are perfectly right in assigning diminished moral responsibility to such individuals.

The second generalized hurdle for any moral theory can be described as “the coma test.” It defies common sense to propose that a man in a coma can be immoral. Thus any moral theory which puts forward positively prescribed actions, such as “you must serve your country” or “you must help the poor” immediately fail the coma test. A moral theory which prescribes a positive good must immediately condemn its opposite as immoral. If “helping the poor” is a positive moral obligation, then refraining from helping the poor must be morally wrong. Since a man in a coma cannot by definition be out helping the poor, he must be immoral, which is quite ridiculous. (Let’s not even get into the evils we would all be committing every time we took a nap!) Of course, you could “adjust” the moral rule to say “you must help the poor to the best of your ability,” which would bypass the coma test, but then plows straight into rank subjectivism – what on earth does “to the best of your ability” really mean? (As it happens, I have a podcast on this very topic!)

The third generalized test is evidence. Any decent moral theory must explain some of the well-known and consistently observed facts of history, such as the grinding poverty of the Middle Ages, the murderous actions of dictatorships, the violent nature of theocracies, the fact that governments always grow, the slow economic suicide of socialism (or the rather more rapid self-immolation of communism) and so on. Any moral theory which predicts that communism would be a smashing success, and that capitalism would result in poverty for all, obviously fails the basic test of empiricism and historical evidence.

I truly believe that we must resist the short-term tactics of arguing only about politics and economics, and instead spend our energies hacking through the challenges of defining arguments for an objective and universal morality. If we can come to a rigorous, well-defined and well-understood theory of morality, then we will gain immense traction, and can finally begin to achieve the success that has hitherto eluded us. Without a doubt, my suggestions are far more strategic and tactical, but I think that it is very clear by now that our prior tactics have not succeeded. If we train ourselves in moral reasoning, and learn how to refute those who oppose universal ethics, rather than, say, merely arguing against the minimum wage, then we can really truly turn the tide of history and save not just libertarianism, but the world.

Turtles All The Way Down

According to an apocryphal story, a well-known scientist was describing to an audience how the Earth orbits the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of his lecture, a little old lady got up and said: “This is all nonsense. Everybody knows that the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle.”

The scientist smiled and said, “I see. Can you tell, me, then, what is the turtle standing on?”

“You’re very clever, young man,” replied the old lady with a prim smile. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

This story neatly captures the logical foolishness of the “Infinite Regression.” It is a tale pregnant with meaning for Libertarians, for we face some version of it almost every time we open our mouths.

The appeal to political authority in all its forms is really an attempt to bypass the black hole of Infinite Regression.

Here’s a pro-state argument we are all intimately familiar with:

Bad people like to use force to prey on good people.
Good people require a government to protect them from bad people.
This government, in order to be the final arbiter, must possess overwhelming force.

The logical madness is clear. Since bad people like using force to prey on good people, and the government is the greatest concentration of force in society, it stands to inevitable reason that bad people will use the government to prey on good people.

This is the central problem of Infinite Regression: who will watch the watchers? There is, of course, no rational or political answer. (There is an anarchistic answer, which I discuss in my podcasts at www.freedomainradio.com.)

We see the same problem in theology. Since the universe exists, people claim, it must have been created. This solves nothing. If the principle is put forward: “that which exists must have been created,” inventing a god immediately triggers an Infinite Regression. A god which exists must then have been created by a super-god, who in turn must have been… Well, let’s just say that it’s turtles all the way up.

Intelligent Design, or Creationism, faces the same problem. If “all life must be created by a god,” then that god, who is clearly alive, must have also been created by another god…

Unjust parental authority faces the same problem.

I say to my son: “I am right because I am your father.”

He naturally asks: “Are you ‘right’ because you are my father – i.e. all fathers are right – or are you right because fathers possess some wisdom or knowledge that sons do not?”

“I am right because I am your father,” I repeat.

“And who taught you this?”

“My father.”

“And he was taught this by his father?” he asks.

“Yes.”

“So who was the first father to say this? And did he not disobey his own father by teaching something new? And does that not make all subsequent teachings of this rule invalid?”

Here I am generally stumped, and call him a communist. Another argument is swallowed up by the black hole of Infinite Regression.

Here’s another. People like to argue that the government should control the use of guns. Why? Because there are bad people who would use those guns to hurt us. The logical rule invoked? Well, we need a gang with more guns (the government) to protect us from gangs with fewer guns (criminals). So naturally, when the government, having gotten rid of its competition, steals our money through taxes, we logically need a World Government to disarm the existing governments. Then we will doubtless need an Interstellar Federation to, well you get the idea…

Rejecting all “arguments” based on the Infinite Regression fallacy can unleash prodigious creativity. What has been sometimes called the single greatest idea in the history of the world arose from Darwin’s failure to be impressed by the Infinite Regression paradoxes of creationism. Free markets – and economics in general – arose from the failure of Ricardo and Smith to be impressed by the Infinite Regression argument that the nobility should manage resources on behalf of everyone else.

In the realm of morality, the problems of Infinite Regression are, literally, genocidal. The fantasy that a minority of men can justly force obedience from everyone else is responsible for more deaths than any other single delusion. In the realm of morality and the use of force, there is simply no solution to the problems of Infinite Regression. A stateless society is the only answer.

Any fundamentally rational philosophy must reject arguments that pass anywhere near the black hole of Infinite Regression. Appeals to the “virtuous violence” of the state instantly self-destruct, because of Infinite Regression. Demands for “obedience to gods” instantly self-destruct, since there must then be an infinite chain of more powerful gods, all obeying the “god above,” which would instantly result in a truly bureaucratic cosmic paralysis. Even merely mortal parents who attempt to justify their commandments through appeals to power, biology or position fall into the gravity well of Infinite Regression.

The three traditional power centers – politicians, priests and most parents – all justify their authority based on Infinite Regression fantasies. If mankind continues to believe in any moral authority except logical consistency and evidence, we will continue to sail blithely over the edge of the old lady’s imaginary plate, falling forever.

As the turtles descend, so do we.

Statist Dating

Statist Dating
By Stefan Molyneux

So this afternoon, when my son comes home from school, he’s carrying a cat-cage. He throws his books on the kitchen table and flashes me a smile, heading to the fridge.

“Hey son,” I ask, “Where’d you get the cat?”

“Oh” he says, opening the fridge door, “it’s my date’s.”

“Your date’s?”

He takes a swig of milk. “Yeah. For the prom tomorrow.”

“Ohhh-k. Why do you have her cat?”

“Uhh, well, for insurance.”

“What? What do you mean?”

“Well I’m not sure she’s going to show.”

“What happened? What did she say when you asked her?”

He rolled his eyes. “Oh, she’s all: it’s sooo totally inappropriate. She wasn’t into.”

I shook my head slightly, trying to make sense of my son. “So – you… took her cat? Because she said no?”

“Uh, Dad, no, what do you think I am, crazy?”

“Uhhh, no… But you do have her cat.”

“Well sure! She said she didn’t want to go to the prom with me, and I told her that she did, but she just didn’t know it yet, and that going to the prom with me was the right thing to do, and so I would have to make her do it if she didn’t want to.”

“What? What kind of… Where on earth did you learn that that was a good idea?”

“From my political science class.”

“Your political… What? How on earth does that make sense?” I took a deep breath. “Step me through it.”

He smiles. “Sure! So my political science teacher tells us we choose the government, and then the government gets to tell us what to do. Right?”

“Yeah, that’s the theory I guess…”

“So I asked her: hey, what if we don’t like what the government tells us to do? She says, well, we have to obey the government anyway, but we can protest, or vote for someone else in a few years or whatever. And then I said: what if the government orders us to do something we really disagree with – can we say no? She says, not really, you have to obey the government. Why? I ask. She says: because you have chosen the government. But if we have chosen the government, why would it need to force us to do things? It’s like– if I go to a store to buy an iPod, and say to the guy, I really want this iPod, here’s my money, and he pulls out a gun and says: you totally have to buy this iPod, or I’m going to shoot you.” He shakes his head. “What kind of sense would that make? If I want to buy the iPod, no one has to force me to buy it. If I don’t want to buy the iPod, isn’t it kind of wrong to force me to buy it? Am I wrong, Dad?”

I sigh. Sometimes I wish my son didn’t have to learn these lessons. “No, son, you’re not wrong.”

He smiles. “So then I said that governments, then, must be always forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, or I guess stop them from doing what they do want to do. And she says that people want to do the wrong things, but that government makes them do the right things. So I asked her how people who want to do the wrong things can vote for people who will force them to do the right things? I mean, if you know enough to say to someone: force me to be good – and here’s my list of good things – then surely you’re good enough already, and don’t need to be forced. And only bad people would want that job anyway!” He shakes his head. “Then she gets really angry and just says that people have to be forced to do the right thing, that there are a lot of bad people in the world, and we need governments to protect us, and so we have to obey, because the government is trying to help us, and basically it knows best. So I say: then it’s OK to force people to do stuff even if they don’t want to. She says yes, as long as you have their best interests at heart. I started to ask her how you could possibly know that, but she cut me off and said we had to move on, and that all the other kids were bored, which I don’t think was the case, ’cause they were all pretty wide-eyed by then.”

I nod slowly. “Right. Sooo… The cat?”

My son hops up on a stool. “Right, right! So, I want a date for the prom, and I ask someone in my poly-sci class, but she’s all ‘nooo, that’s soooo inappropriate,’ but I really want her to come, ’cause I have her best interests at heart, so I tell her that she has to come to the prom with me, because there are lots of bad dates out there, and it’s my duty to protect her. She says that she doesn’t need protection. I say sorry, that’s not really an option. She tells me to get lost. I say that if you don’t want to obey me, there will be consequences. She gets really mad and tells me to stop threatening her. I say I am not threatening her, I am just governing her, and if she doesn’t obey me, I’ll be forced to take her cat. She calls me a little creep and storms off.”

“So… that’s her cat?”

“Yeah, it’s easy to find out where people live. And it was an outdoor cat, so I didn’t have to break in or anything.”

I sigh. “So when can I expect a call from the girl’s parents?”

He blinks in confusion. “Parents? Why would her parents call? She’s, like, ancient.”

“Ancient? You’re in grade 9!”

“Sure.”

“So how old is this girl?”

He pokes his finger into the cat cage. “Hi there!” He glances at me. “Oh she’s not a girl, dad. She’s a woman.”

“What?”

The phone rings. Numbly, I pick it up. Before I can say anything, a shrieking female voice hits my ear like an icepick.

“This is Mrs. Staten, your son’s political science teacher, what on earth is going on, and where the hell is my cat?”

Worst. Meeting. Ever!

In my role as a business consultant, I am often asked to provide solutions to highly complex problems. Recently, a large, politically well-connected agricultural business paid me a fortune to provide them with a five-year plan on how to best allocate their assets, capital and human resources in order to maximize profitability. The complexity of the business challenges involved were overwhelming, and I almost despaired of being able to provide them with a solution. The night before my big presentation, however, I suddenly remembered a central lesson I had learned in my political science classes. Armed with inspiration, I scribbled down a complete and total six-step solution, slept well, and presented my answer at the Board of Directors meeting the next morning.

This is what I showed them:

Step One
Find some people.

Step Two
Arm them.

Step Three
Help them disarm everyone else.

Step Four
Give them enormous amounts of money.

Step Five
Give them your wish list.

Step Six
Wait for the solution!

I finished my presentation and turned to my audience, flushed with triumph. But for some reason, my solution was not greeted with cheers and accolades. Instead, I saw nothing but baffled and angry faces.

“What the hell was that?” demanded the Chairman of the Board.

“Excuse me?”

“What kind of crap was that?”

“I’m sorry,” I frowned. “I’m totally confused. Are there any Republicans or Democrats in the room?”

“Well of course, but…”

“And do you vote? Do you all vote?”

“Sure, but…”

“Well,” I asked, “do you have something against democracy then?”

Of course not, they all cried, but what does any of that have to do with this presentation?

“Well,” I said, “that’s the beauty of it! If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you already agree that this ‘six step’ solution is the perfect answer to incredibly complex problems like educating children, providing health care, alleviating poverty and eliminating drug use – and tons of other problems far more complex than the one you want me to solve! So – given that you already approve of this ‘six step’ program for the most complicated and challenging social problems, surely it should be perfectly applicable to your much less complicated business issue! Heck, it might even be overkill!

This did not go over very well at all, which was rather surprising to me. I had to interrupt their angry words. “What on earth are you upset about?” I demanded. “Do you disapprove of public education? Does public education use something other than this ‘six step’ program? Don’t we give guns to a group of people and then ask them to educate our children? Don’t we give these people the entire power of the state, which they use to prevent other educators from competing with them? Does this power not give this group access to enormous amounts of money? Do we not keep handing those in the government our ‘wish list’ of the problems we want solved? And do we not fully expect that they will provide us with a solution? Why on earth are you angry? You have already approved this plan!”

More anger, more hostility – and then, most strangely, the Chairman suddenly demanded that I give them a full refund! I could not believe it! I asked if everyone had decided that they no longer were Democrats or Republicans. Strenuous denials all around! I held up my hand. “Excuse me. Excuse me! What do you do when the government fails to give you what you want? Do you demand a refund? If not, then why should I give you one?”

They ended up throwing me out on the street, shook their fists in my face, and promised to sue me if I didn’t give them back every penny they’d paid me.

I got up and dusted myself off, shaking my head in utter confusion. When I offer them a political solution, they scowl and yell at me – but they cheer and vote for a politician! I offer them the exact same solution that the government does, and they express loyalty to the government and threaten me! They throw me out into the street – and then meekly send their children to government schools. And jails. And wars.

People are very, very confusing.

The Gun in the Room Part 2 (Part 1 below)

Compliance is not Freedom

First of all, thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts with me about my last article – “The Gun in the Room.” In general, responses tended to fall into two rough categories:

• Great article!
  - and
• You’re insane!

Naturally, I do not wish to take issue with the first assessment, so let's have a look at the general objections contained within the second.

Overall, my sanity was questioned because many people thought I believe that the moment a man breaks the law, the government shoots him. In my world, apparently, the moment your speedometer creeps over the speed limit, state snipers blow your head off.

This, of course, would result in a largely unpopulated planet, and therefore I would like to clarify my position on the correlation between breaking the law and being aggressed against by the state.

If you fail to file a tax return, you are not immediately dragged before a kangaroo court, and shot after a speedy and Stalin-esque trial. That takes time. ; ) Rather, you will get a letter – often a rather polite one – asking if there may be some kind of problem. If you do not respond to this letter, very little will happen.

For a while, anyway.

If you fail to file a tax return again, you may get another letter. Or, you may not. Tax authorities will sometimes leave you alone for several years, to bolster their eventual prosecution by showing a pattern of intentional tax evasion.

However, the day will come when you receive a letter that is not quite as polite. In this letter, you will be told to file your tax returns, or face the consequences, which will decidedly not involve just another letter. If you still do not file your tax return(s), you will get another letter detailing the actions will be taken against you if you do not file your tax return(s) immediately. If you continue in your course, you will receive another letter – decidedly un-polite at this point – with a court date, and a list of penalties that will be assessed against you when you are found guilty of tax evasion. Initially, these penalties will be largely financial – back taxes, fines etc. If you show up at the court, you will be found guilty, and large fines will be imposed upon you. If you do not pay the fines – or do not show up in court to begin with – sooner or later, the police will come to arrest you.

When the police come to arrest you, you will be severely discouraged from acting in self-defense, despite the fact that their actions are identical to a “home invasion.” When the policemen break your door down, if you pull out a gun to protect yourself, you will very likely get shot. Even if you do not get shot, your prison stay will be greatly extended because you have now threatened the police in addition to not paying your taxes.

If you attempt to escape from the custody of police – or, later, the prison guards – you also will very likely get shot, and will certainly receive harsh punishment. If, after you are released from prison, you still refrain from paying your taxes, you will very likely spend the rest of your life in prison. (We need not go into the horrible details of what happens in prison – let’s just say that, after your first night, you may have a new appreciation for the legal victims of the “war on terror.”)

The fact that months or years can pass between breaking the law and being violently punished – combined with the reality that most people do obey the state, and thus do not incur such punishments – often confuses people as to the true nature of the society they live in.

To take a parallel example, let’s look at the institution of slavery. Most slaves did not try to run away, and neither did they aggress against their masters. If they worked hard, and obeyed the rules, they were even unlikely to be beaten or deprived of food (though rape was another matter). In other words, a slave could live most of his life without being directly aggressed against. Does that mean that slavery was not enforced through violence? Of course not! Compliance to violence only obscures it, it does not eliminate it.

Let’s take another example. Most people will give up their wallets at gunpoint rather than risk of getting shot. In most robberies, then, no actual violence occurs – only the threat of violence. Do we then believe that no violence occurs unless someone actually gets shot? If a man approaches you and hints that if you do not pay him protection money, your house just might get burned down at some point in the future, is that immoral intimidation?

Mentioning public schools also confused some people. They understood my point about the Iraq war – that you cannot be said to have any right to oppose it if you are forced to fund it – but they could not make the leap to public schools. Let me clarify. If you do not pay the taxes that pay for public schools, the sequence of events that starts with a letter and ends with you getting shot or thrown into the rape room of a government prison also occurs. Not one single aspect of state finance or activity occurs outside the realm of violence. Even the Federal Reserve is based on violence, because if you attempt to duplicate its capacity to counterfeit, or set up your own currency… Well, you know what happens.

I certainly understand that the simple reality of universal state violence makes many people very uncomfortable – and they are quite right to feel uncomfortable! Once you really get this idea under your skin, your life will change irrevocably. You will no longer be tempted to base your arguments on tedious and complicated abstractions. When talking to people about freedom, you will cut to the core of the issues very rapidly. This will have enormous effects on every single relationship in your life. You will very quickly discover the true moral natures of those around you – and this can be quite shocking. So I certainly understand why people are hesitant to accept this idea, and why they prefer to label me as an “extremist” rather than to begin exploring the reality of state violence in their own hearts and with the people around them.

Of course, there is also an empirical method by which the existence of “the gun on the room” can be tested. It’s really quite simple, although I certainly don’t recommend it.

Stop obeying the law.

If you are right, you have just saved yourself enormous amounts of time and money. If I am right, though, we may never see you again – which would be a real tragedy, because libertarianism needs all the supporters it can get!

If, however, you hesitate to flout the rules of the state, then it is important to examine why. If you’re honest with yourself, you will find, as I did, that you tremble in fear before the guns of the state, and that the humiliation of being ordered around for your entire life is almost unbearable.

The solution to the humiliation of forced compliance is, however, to reject the force, not to imagine that compliance makes it vanish. Such magic is beyond us. We must face the reality of the violence we live under. The fact that you have not been arrested does not mean that you are free.

The Gun in the Room

“Put down the gun, then we’ll talk.”

One of the most difficult – and essential – challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out “the gun in the room.” In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a “euphemism umbrella” to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.

It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about “the welfare state helping the poor,” we must point out the gun in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room – even if one bullet has been taken out.

So much political language is designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence that libertarianism sometimes has to sound like a broken record. We must, however, continue to peel back the euphemisms to reveal the socially-sanctioned brutality at the root of some of our most embedded social institutions.

I was recently involved in a debate with a woman about public schools. Naturally, she came up with reason after reason as to why public schools were beneficial, how wonderful they were for underprivileged children, how essential they were for social stability etc etc. Each of these points – and many more – could have consumed hour upon hour of back and forth, and would have required extensive research and complicated philosophical reasoning. But there was really no need for any of that – all I had to do was keep saying:

“The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”

Most political debates really are that simple. People don’t get into violent debates about which restaurant is best because the state doesn’t impose one restaurant on everyone – and shoot those trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that I couldn’t care less about this woman’s views on education – just as she couldn’t care less about my views – but we are forced to debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing views without one of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate, and as long as it remained unacknowledged, we weren’t going to get anywhere.

Here’s another example. A listener to my ‘Freedomain Radio’ show posted the following comment on the message board:

If you say “Government A doesn’t work,” you are really saying that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on government vs. free market society. The rules defining a free market are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as a government is. Don’t debate that a government is using guns to force others, when it’s really individuals with guns, instead show how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how those guns could force others in a more beneficial way.

I responded in this manner:

But – and I’m sorry if I misunderstand you – government is force, so I’m not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me substitute another use of force to show my confusion:

“If you say that rape doesn’t work you are really saying that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on rape vs. dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as rape is. Don’t debate that a group of rapists is forcing others, when it’s really individual rapists, instead show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing others or how those rapists could force others in a more beneficial way.”

Do you see my confusion?

Thanks!

It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that these euphemisms exist – in fact, I would not believe in the moral superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms did not exist! If, every time I pointed out to people that their political positions all required that I get shot or arrested, they just growled: “Sure, I got no problem with that – in fact, if you keep disagreeing with me I’m going to shoot you myself!” – then, I would find it very hard to argue for a stateless society!

In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though, I’ve never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me himself or have someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this fact, because it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential to the maintenance and increase of state power.

The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to obscure “the gun in the room” is the simple fact that people don’t like violence very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a violent situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the Iraq invasion would have a hard time justifying the proposition that anybody who opposed the invasion should be shot – because it was to defend such freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in the first place! But how can I have the right to oppose the invasion of Iraq if I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that is a ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a right to free speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking his mind. If I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot be forced to fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have to “oppose” it is purely imaginary.

In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one single, simple statement:

“Put down the gun, then we’ll talk.”

This is the core morality of both libertarianism and civilization. Civilized people do not shoot each other when they disagree – decent people do not wave guns in each other’s faces and demand submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well – I would say better than many libertarians do – and so constantly obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-mouthed and euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren’t murdered, they “fall.” Iraq wasn’t invaded, but “liberated.” Politicians aren’t our political masters, they are “civil servants,” and so on and on.

Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical doctrine, the primary task of the libertarian is to continually reinforce the basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian. If we simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others in order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe philosophy, but rather a simple description of the principles by which they already live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you should hold your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and corporate subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement smoking marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose war be shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position with regards to taxation.

Like the scientific method, libertarianism’s greatest strength is its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property rights leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of property rights is very simple – would you shoot a man in order to steal his property? The same complexity arises from the simple and universal application of the non-aggression principle. It’s so easy to get lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep enunciating the basic principles.

So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of the Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts awake and drops it in horror and loathing.

A Personal History of Political Freedom

My journey towards personal, political and philosophical freedom has been a complete and total circle. When I first began to explore philosophy in my mid-teens, I started with the usual suspects – Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Plato and so on. I fully accepted all of the theoretical principles inherent in a rational and empirical approach to analyzing truth. When I first heard the proposition that “taxation is theft,” I accepted it with the same equanimity I felt when I was first told of the world was round – not immediately evident, but perfectly sensible upon reflection.

And so I began my journey towards the heart of truth – and away from the vast majority of the people around me. The pursuit of philosophical truth, political freedom and personal authenticity has always been a somewhat lonely task – though spending time unwise people is always lonelier – but when starting my journey, I had no idea how far it would take me from my starting point. It has been very much like the line from the TS Eliot poem:

“At the end of all our journeying, we will return to the place of departure and know it for the first time.”

Now I am far from the end of my journey of course, but I really feel that I have gained a new appreciation of the ideas that set me on my path those many years ago.

Because I had no idea of the distance I had to travel when I started, I made far too many compromises along the way. These compromises have taught me about the great value of integrity, which was sorely lacking in me. I wanted friends, I needed my family, I wanted to date and make love, to get a graduate degree and move ahead in my career. In order to achieve these false goals, I created within myself two worlds. The first was an inner world where philosophy, integrity, honesty, virtue and truth all ruled supreme, and I was beholden to the goddess of philosophy in a purely removed and Platonic sense (this of course despite being an avowed anti-Platonic philosopher!). The second world was the world outside myself, where practical considerations like ambition, companionship, money and sex all held sway.

There was precious little connection between these two worlds. I dreamt in one, a soul without a body. I lived in the other, a body without a soul…

Throughout my late 20s and early 30s, I pursued the external world of ambition, wealth and status. I co-founded a software company, worked and traveled endlessly, and grew it to a multi-million dollar business. As the company grew more and more successful, it attracted corrupt people who wished to use it to transfer money from gullible investors to their own pockets. As a technologist, I averted my eyes and clung to my ignorance about the financial aspect of the business. After selling the company, I stayed on despite increasing evidence of the increasing corruption around me. I told myself it was for the sake of my employees, but in truth I was greedy for money and status and worldly success.

My conscience, however, trained and strengthened by years of philosophical examination, ultimately rebelled, and I ceased to be able to sleep. The contradictions between my values and my actions, my ethics and my companions – my virtue and my family – overwhelmed me, though I did not understand what was happening at the time.

Desperate to regain my equilibrium, I plunged into an extraordinarily rigorous self-examination, entering therapy and keeping a voluminous journal about my dreams and emotional experiences. Crossing the chasm between these two worlds – the world of the inner integrity and outer actions – proved an enormously difficult task. Taking the ideas that I had loved was so long with all of the seriousness that they deserved proved an unbelievably hard challenge. But I learned an important lesson. Talk is cheap. Integrity will cost you.

As I began to really live my values, one by one, friends, family and lovers all began to drop away from me. Despite my love of rational philosophy, I had accumulated friends who were statists, friends who were mystics, friends who were irrational, friends who were immoral, friends who were empty, friends who actively opposed the pursuit of truth and wisdom – and let's not even bother going over my familial and romantic relationships, I'm sure you get the picture! I debated with everyone, but it meant nothing – it was like two television sets pointed at each other. I strongly disagreed with friends who advocated the use of statist violence, but my moral opposition had no relation to our friendship. My ethics had no fundamental impact on my real life.

As a market anarchist, I do face some very challenging moral conversations with people around me. For instance, if a man tells me he is in favor of taxation, I now have little choice but to remind him that if he is in favor of taxation, it he is in favor of the government shooting me. I am always willing to discuss alternatives to the violence of taxation, but if this man proves unwilling to alter his opinion, then he is a man who wants me to be killed. When I was younger, I would ignore this. Now that I'm a little wiser, I do not.

Once, my wife's boss came over dinner, and brought her husband with her. He was an outspoken supporter of the invasion of Iraq. I tried reasoning with him, but his worship of the military “ethic” was immovable. I then said to him “Well, if I cannot change your mind about the virtue of invading Iraq, will you at least support my right not to fund a war I believe to be morally abhorrent?” He had a great degree of difficulty understanding what I meant of course, since taxation is so ingrained into our culture, but he did eventually understand that I should not be shot for withholding my financial support from a war I believe to be evil. Fortunately, he agreed with this position, helping us avoid a very awkward situation!

I face a similar challenge with Christians. Both the Old and New Testaments constantly command Christians to murder unbelievers. I do not pursue these conversations, since they tend to be very explosive, but if a man tells me that he is a Christian, I do have to ask him if he supports me being put to death for being an atheist. Very few Christians have actually read the Bible all the way through, so they are generally very surprised to hear that God instructs them to kill nonbelievers (of course they also believe that Islam is a violent religion!). They try to find any number of excuses to get their deity "off the hook" for making such evil commandments. They point out the virtues of certain Christians, or that the Bible is mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood and so on. However, I point out that a black man may be forgiven for feeling animosity towards the Ku Klux Klan, even of Klan members do put on a good barbecue and sometimes give to charity – and that is how a rational atheist views Christianity, and most other religions.

All these conversations are challenging enough – however, that the most challenging philosophical conversations I have are those involving the family. My wife practices psychology, and has really helped me to understand the role that the family and early childhood experiences play in molding a person’s thinking. If a man rails against the power of the state, but submits to cold, offensive or aggressive family relations, he understands as little about morality as, well, I did in my twenties! I now firmly believe that the state gains the vast majority of its power, influence and credibility from unjust family authority. In their essence, governments are just parents writ large.

I only really understood this years after I had broken with my own family – which was quite a shock for me. I always believed that wisdom came from reason – but sometimes, wisdom can be provoked by decisive action. When I ended all my unpleasant and negative personal relationships, I thought I was near the end of the book of truth. Not so! I turned the page expecting to find an index, but instead found a new table of contents. Dealing with my family taught me more about morality than twenty years of studying ethical theories. Thoughts and books alone are a sort of prison. Freedom only really comes alive in action.

We can do precious little to free ourselves from the near-omnipotence of state power – however, we can take great strides to free ourselves from the more relevant and invasive tyrannies of corrupt personal relationships. The motto of my radio show – Freedomain Radio – is ‘The Logic of Personal and Political Liberty’ – and the sequence is not accidental. Personal liberty must always come first.

It can be sometimes a grim, lonely, and dispiriting business, talking about moral philosophy from first principles, and refusing to associate with people who wish you evil. However, the rewards are more than worth it! I have wonderful (though few!) remaining friends, a glorious relationship with my lovely wife, and through my work at Freedomain Radio, I have gathered many new friends, and thoroughly enjoy sharing ideas with a truly brilliant crew!

In taking this time to think back more than 20 years over my philosophical journey, I am really amazed at the impressive circularity of my path. Except for small aspects of statism, I cannot really think of any moral principles that I accepted in my teens that I do not actively practice now. The difference, of course, is that rather than just thinking about philosophy in the abstract, I actually practice it in the here and now, in my own life, every day. Bringing philosophy to life in this way has made all the difference in the world.

Importing Freedom

Perspectives on the Question of Immigration

- By Stefan Molyneux and Wilton D. Alston

One of the truly “hot button” libertarian issues is immigration. While most libertarians would reject the argument “we must have taxation to pay for the welfare state,” many do support the position that “we must control immigration because of the welfare state.”

This is particularly true for U.S. libertarians, who seem very alarmed that 40% of Mexicans have expressed a desire to come and taste the fruits of freedom north of the border. “Forty million Mexicans coming to live here? What a disaster!”

Well maybe. But maybe not. Let’s spend a few minutes examining that question. And just for good measure, let us be sure to examine both of the most widely held libertarian views.
One major fear that many libertarians have is that immigrants will pour into the country and ‘take over’ the government through lobbying and voting. Another one – and this is by far the predominant “scholarly” position taken by the libertarian intelligentsia – is that immigrants will overwhelm the U.S. economy. This is the position so vigorously argued by people like Hans-Herman Hoppe in an article from as far back as 1998 and Stephen Cox in a recent article from 2006. Separated by such a long time period, and both writing in nominally libertarian publications, both men say essentially the same thing – letting too many immigrants into America (particularly of the low-income/low-skill variety) would be catastrophic for our way of life.

In the “immigrant voting” scenario, state policies will be warped by new influences to serve the needs of these newcomers. Salsa will become the official dip of the United States. Mamba lessons will be mandatory, and “America’s Funniest Home Videos” will end up showing only piñata crotch-shots. In the “economic strife” scenario, the U.S. would be “overrun by millions of third-world immigrants,” turn into a 2000-mile wide refugee camp or some such. The already depleted cup of welfare would be drained and finding a seat at your local emergency room would begin to look like a scene from “Coming to America: Vive La Noche.” Neither Hoppe nor Cox mention dogs and cats living together, but that was probably just an oversight.

All kidding aside, these are both very interesting perspectives, and could actually be a real bridge between libertarians and existing minorities, instead of a barrier, depending upon how they are analyzed.

Overpowering the Vote?

When we consider a flood of, say, vote-happy Norwegian immigrants, we can easily picture that the politicians will be Norwegian, the policies will be “Norwegian-friendly,” and our own culture and preferences will be swept aside in a Norwegian-appeasing majority stampede. We would feel alienated, right? We would feel excluded and ignored and perhaps even a little belittled. We would distance ourselves from the political process and grumble that the government is really only there to serve the Norwegians. We would be highly discontented with the existing system, and probably quite open to exploring alternatives. What would we have to lose?

In other words, we would be exactly the sort of people that libertarians should be talking to. When we fear the government serving special interests based on someone else’s race and culture, we exactly reproduce how most minorities view the existing political system.
Just look at Congress. A bunch of old white guys, mostly. Look at the list of Presidents – yawn, might as well be a picture of the same guy over and over. Look at the history of how the government has treated minorities – from slavery to incarceration to Jim Crow to abysmal local schools and the soft quagmire of the welfare state. Do you think that the average minority member looks at the existing government and says: “Now there’s a bunch of white-haired old fogeys who are truly looking out for me!” Of course not! Minorities aren’t very invested in the existing system. They’re interested in change. What will a libertarian solution cost them? They have no real voice or access to power anyway.

Let’s be honest. Another reason that many of us are afraid of immigration because we fear that foreigners will swarm over dragging families and dependents and overwhelm the public system with endless demands for health care, education, welfare, pensions and so on. Crime and taxes will skyrocket, property values will plummet etc. etc. etc.

Overwhelming the Economy?

In “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration,” as he attempts to logically and methodically illustrate the error of free immigration that intellectually undergirds this fear, Hoppe says:

"Assume that the U.S., or better still Switzerland, declared that there would no longer be any border controls, that anyone who could pay the fare might enter the country, and, as a resident then be entitled to every “normal” domestic welfare provision. Can there be any doubt how disastrous such an experiment would turn out in the present world? The U.S., and Switzerland even faster, would be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants, because life on and off American and Swiss public streets is comfortable compared to life in many areas of the third world. Welfare costs would skyrocket, and the strangled economy disintegrate and collapse, as the subsistence fund—the stock of capital accumulated in and inherited from the past—was plundered. Civilization in the U.S. and Switzerland would vanish, just as it once did from Rome and Greece."

That does sound pretty scary! (Where’s a Texas-vigilante-turned-patriot minuteman when you need one?) Certainly if the current politicos plundering of our money have not driven the U.S. into the history books right next to ancient Rome, too many low-wage immigrants would be the proverbial straw, right?

But very tellingly, Hoppe includes the caveat, “as a resident then be entitled to every ‘normal’ domestic welfare provision.” Even if we libertarians are so politically weak and societally marginalized that we cannot convince everyone that welfare is a bad idea, surely we could posit a reasonable treatise as to why it should not be offered willy-nilly to anybody who shows up to ask for it.

But wait, there’s more. In the “The Fallacy of Open Immigration,” Cox says:
"Imagine an unskilled laborer who has come here legally, just as proponents of open borders wish that all unskilled laborers could do. Let's say he makes $15,000 a year — an income that is above the minimum wage, an income that is quite good enough to draw millions of people here from almost anywhere in the world, provided we had open borders. And let's say that his wife works too (part time, because of the kids) and makes $10,000 a year. That $25,000 is the value they contribute to the American economy. Out of it, they pay maybe $1,200 in sales taxes, $500 in the property taxes that are included in their rent, $1,900 in Social Security payments, and zip in income taxes. (Whatever taxes are extracted from their checks, they get back in refunds. Actually, because of tax subsidies to poor people, they will probably get back a good deal more than they pay in, but to be extra-fair I won't pause to calculate that.)"

Cox goes on with:

"Of course, the Social Security contributions are not invested and will never earn enough to pay the total cost of the couple's retirement benefits; other taxpayers will have to do that. In this respect, the couple is already a serious economic loss. The scale of that loss will appear when they retire. Other losses are happening right now. Because of their low income, man and wife are eligible for innumerable welfare programs — from subsidized housing to medical assistance (if they don't have adequate private insurance, which they won't) to free legal aid to disaster aid if a storm comes through. Any physical disability may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills to other taxpayers. Whenever the couple have a child, that's $10,000 at the county hospital. Afterwards, it's probably $5,000 a year for a government-financed preschool, then $10,000 a year (the approximate national average) in government funds for K-12 education."

Wow. After hearing all that, not only do closed borders sound like a good idea but one could get the sneaking suspicion that we would all be better off if we could “deport” most of the existing poor people as well! (They were born here you say? Just a petty detail!) They are, using the same analysis Cox uses above, draining hard-earned cash from the pocketbooks of those who pay taxes (something libertarians almost universally consider stealing) and do not contribute their “fair share” to the economy. It’s just not right! And the Founding Fathers would say so too!

At this point some readers might ask, “Well, other then when they got here, what makes immigrants different than the poor we already have?” (Other than the fact that nothing guarantees that they will stay poor, even if they do arrive on a seawater-soaked-mattress. I’ll take NOTHING for $500 Alex.) If it would be immoral to deport those already “draining the system,” how can the inefficiency and theft of that system be used as a logical argument against letting others come here simply because they too could end up using it? Good question.

The fact that such an action and the system it ostensibly protects are orthogonal to libertarian theory might also be a clue. Maybe reading a few more of these closed-border-libertarian pieces would allow us all to find out, but that is unlikely. In the meantime, libertarians would better serve the theory, logic, and dogma they ostensibly value by laboring to remove the sorry hand of the state versus espousing more rhetoric that protects the meager chips already on the table from the poor no matter from whence they came. That sounds simple, but the best answers usually are, at least according to Occam’s Razor.

To be fair to Hoppe though, all his writings do not so openly support closed borders. In “Free Immigration or Forced Integration,” as quoted from the Block article linked below, he says:
“It would also be wrongheaded to attack the case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become, to a significant extent, the immigration of welfare bums, who, even if the United States is below the optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards. For this is not an argument against immigration but rather against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct, and they must be treated accordingly.”

Indeed. And libertarian theorist and author Walter Block hits the nail on the head in “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration” when he says:

“Let it be said loudly and clearly: end welfare for all people, but at the very least for immigrants and their descendants, and by definition immigrants will no longer be attracted to our shores in order to receive such funds.”

Little more need be said if we libertarians are truly worried about this one issue. But just between us, and again calling upon Block, it seems a little simple-minded to suggest “that immigrants come to our shores not to breathe the heady wine of economic freedom, but to avail themselves of our stupendously generous welfare system.” As Block accurately states, “This is not so much a quarrel with immigration as it is with welfare.” Why not focus on the problem directly versus opining about another set of folks who could fall victim to it?

Conclusion

When looking at groups that threaten your economic interests and personal freedoms, should immigrants be at (or even near) the top of the list? Review the data for yourself. Was the invasion of Iraq orchestrated by immigrants? Did immigrants set up the Social Security Ponzi scheme? What about the Fed and the endless debasement of currency? Immigrants? Not so much. The military/industrial complex? Rich white guys. The welfare state? Massive taxation? The national debt? The Patriot Act? The hundred thousand regulations passed by the Federal government every year, are those agitated for or passed by Mexicans or Norwegians or blind women from Luxemburg speaking in tongues?

Of course not. Immigrants aren’t the ones taking away your freedom. It’s guys who probably look quite a bit like you. Immigrants are victims of the same poorly-conceived statist ideas that libertarians normally attack. How can they simultaneously be the culprit in any supposed libertarian examination of the possible problems of immigration?

“Oh sure,” you say, “but a lot of immigrants have lobbyists and influence, and they strive for preferential legislation.” Well sure! But who set up the system that made lobbying was so profitable? It wasn’t the immigrants. It wasn’t the poor. And it certainly wasn’t the blacks!
What does the government spend money on? Social security – mostly for elderly whites. Military spending, which mostly benefits whites. Interest payments on the national debt aren’t exactly swelling the coffers of the NAACP. Corporate welfare? The overprinting of money? Do poor minorities benefit from state-created inflation? You get the idea.

An elementary tactic of those in power is to sow dissent, so that those they rule become fearful of each other rather than angry at the rulers. The idea that millions of Mexicans threaten our freedom more than a few hundred congressmen is laughable. Mexican immigrants are willing to uproot their entire lives and leave their country behind just for the chance to breathe free! The idea that immigrants don’t appreciate freedom, but the average complacent, state-indoctrinated native does is patently false. Immigrants weren’t in charge when we lost our freedoms. White guys were. Millions of ‘illegal immigrants’ threaten you somehow? Compared to your neighbor who votes Democrat or Republican and demands his Social Security? Puh-lease!

Who is more dedicated to freedom, a Republican who supports the President no matter what, or a man who risks death rowing a tiny boat over from Cuba? Who yearns more for freedom, your Congressman, or a Chinese woman who hides in the hold of a ship for weeks, is willing to live illegally and run the risk of get shipped back to her Communist masters if caught? Who understands the dangers of totalitarianism more, the average citizen indoctrinated in state schools with blind patriotism, or those who sacrifice everything to flee the state oppression of their homelands? America was founded by people fleeing oppression!

Many, including Cox, would likely call any libertarian who subscribes to such a (gasp) dogmatic view of libertarian law a fool. Similarly, we purists have a poor grasp on reality. Supposedly, adherence to the very theories that make libertarians different from the political mainstream also makes libertarians a “parody of themselves” and thereby the laughing stock of the mainstream. Maybe all that is true. But not for nothing, if we advocates of market anarchism are thought of as out-of-touch by beer-gut intelligentsia who obtain their political information from Faux News, that’s okay. And if open immigration does turn out to bankrupt the state, is that the end of the world? Can we expect radical reform in the absence of crisis? State bankruptcy ended Communism after all.

If libertarians are going to continue to be what we already are, a tiny minority, almost totally excluded from the political mainstream, then let’s at least do it while staying true to the concept upon which libertarianism is actually supposed to be based: the non-aggression axiom – particularly as interpreted using the argument from morality.

Immigrants and minorities may well be the best friends that freedom has. They do not fall as readily to propaganda, and they experience the excluded underbelly of state power more accurately than many libertarians. They are not threats to be feared, but friends to be made.

As an excluded minority themselves, libertarians should know better.

Respecting the "Sheeple"

Loving Non-Libertarians As If They Never Hurt You…

One of the greatest challenges in the libertarian movement is reaching out to non-libertarians. Some people within the libertarian movement – due to frustration no doubt – have developed a rather scornful attitude towards non-libertarians. I believe that this is the greatest inhibitor to our eventual success as a movement, and I would like to make the case here for benevolence and respect towards non-libertarians.

As an intellectual movement, we will only succeed if we change the mind of others, and so discovering the most effective methods of communication is essential. And before asking how we should change other people's minds, it is well worth asking: what changed my mind?

I believe that the answer to this question will not only new breed more effective communication, but will also foster a growing benevolence towards non-libertarians.

In my own case, libertarianism was an “instant high” for me – and was also almost totally accidental! A friend of mine listened to the rock band Rush, whose drummer was a fan of Ayn Rand. My friend passed me a copy of The Fountainhead, and I fell in love with the ideas within about two pages.

Almost all libertarians that I have ever talked to had a similar kind of “instant epiphany,” wherein they felt that a new world opening up for them, and that they were able to start really using their minds the first time in their lives.

When you really take the time to sit down and ruminate on this process, it is very instructive. Most of us became libertarians because we loved the ideas when we first encountered them. Our passion for the ideas led us to develop the logic of the position. The passion, the pleasure, the excitement – all these emotional experiences came first. The elucidation and rational verification came later.

It seems impossible that within reading a few pages of The Fountainhead, I was able to rationally grasp and process objectivist philosophy. What Ayn Rand called “a sense of life” spoke to me from the pages of her novel. A deep aspect of my personality responded to the passionate individualism of her characters and language. As I learned more and more about objectivism and libertarianism, I confirmed all of my initial impressions, but I was driven to study philosophy because of my pleasure in the process. I became more rational not as a result of logical arguments, but rather because I enjoyed studying logical arguments.

This is a crucial distinction, and something that is essential for libertarians to understand. There are certain souls in the world that are naturally drawn to liberty, and all that is required is that these souls be exposed to rational ideas, and everything follows from there. (There are also certain souls in the world that are naturally hostile to liberty, and no amount of exposure or argument will ever change them!)

What should most concern us as libertarians, are those in the middle – those who are neither naturally drawn to, nor naturally averse to, ideas of liberty. It is these people that we must reach if we are to succeed as a movement.

Once we understand that it was our passionate and pleasurable initial reaction to logical arguments that drew us down the road of philosophy, we can also begin to appreciate that such a reaction is very uncommon. I did not voluntarily choose to find philosophy so pleasurable – it was a complete surprise to me! Thus I cannot really say that my lifelong study of philosophy is the result of listening to rational arguments, but rather from following my own pleasure. I believe that the study of philosophy has granted me a certain virtue and wisdom which I would not have possessed otherwise, but I did not possess those attributes at the beginning of my journey.

If a love of philosophy is to some degree innate, than it cannot be a source of personal pride. If I am prone to weight gain, but work hard to maintain a healthy weight, I can take pride in that accomplishment. If, however, I am naturally thin, then maintaining a healthy weight cannot logically be a source of pride. Most libertarians are “naturally philosophical”, in the same way that Mozart was “naturally musical”, and so for it to be a source of pride and superiority is fundamentally irrational.

Now Mozart would probably have been just about the worst piano teacher in the world, since what came so naturally, easily and pleasurably for him comes very hard for other people. If Mozart wanted to become a good piano teacher, he would have to understand that his own natural talents and capacities were not shared by the general population, and that he would have to approach things slowly and respectfully in order to transfer his knowledge effectively. If Mozart kept calling his students stupid for failing to grasp musical concepts and write symphonies at the age of seven, they would probably not find the experience very pleasurable, and would probably not end up learning a whole lot about music!

The emotional approach of many libertarians to non-libertarians is similar – concepts that come easily to libertarians are very hard for non-libertarians to grasp. This does not mean that non-libertarians are stupid, corrupt, evil, stubborn – or any of the other lovely epithets often bestowed upon them by libertarians! If you are trying to transfer knowledge to someone, and they reject that knowledge, that is always and forever your responsibility. Either you chose someone incapable of understanding what you're trying to tell them, or they were capable of understanding it but you have failed to communicate effectively. Blaming the listener is irrational.

It is also important to understand how libertarianism looks to non-libertarians. It remains sort of a “fringe belief,” of which there are far too many in this irrational world! When the average citizen considers libertarianism, he or she will look to the experts, just as most of us do when surveying unfamiliar fields. What will he see? Well, when he flips on CNN, he sees no libertarians on panel discussions. When he opens his newspaper, he sees no almost libertarian editorials. When he looks at universities, he sees almost no libertarian professors. When he reviews expert literature, he finds very few libertarian positions. When he looks at the thoughts of many of the most intelligent members of the human race, such as Einstein, Russell, Mill, Keynes and so on, he finds socialism or statism advocated in many forms. When he thinks back on his own state education, he recalls no libertarian positions, but endless streams of pro-state “facts.” Can we rationally condemn him for his skepticism? Because he equates “capitalism” with child slavery and the Great Depression, we appear to him like a doctor arguing against antibiotics and for a return to leeching!

Furthermore – and this is a very a very important fact – most individuals will face significant social – and probably professional – repercussions for accepting libertarian positions. Conversations with their families, friends and colleagues will probably become quite uncomfortable. If they have children, they may have to “de-program” them – and reversals in parental moral instructions can be very difficult, both for the parent and child (or, heaven forbid, the teenager!). And what if the person you are trying to enlighten is a public school teacher, or a professor? If he accepts your position, he will have to realize that the vast majority of his career has been spent communicating falsehoods – and thus also punishing the rare student who spoke the truth! This would be quite a bitter pill for any educator to swallow!

Furthermore, even if they switch their positions, we cannot tell them "then, we will triumph, and the power of the state will be curtailed". We really are asking for a lot – ostracism, endless social and professional conflicts, a reversal of all prior ethical beliefs – and for what? Some possible victory in the far future! From a cost/benefit standpoint, it is a pretty tough case to make!

People are responsible for their beliefs, of course, and I am not saying “no one is accountable,” but I think that we need to approach non-libertarians by sharing enthusiasm, not radiating superiority. We all spend good portions of our lives – whether we are teachers are not – communicating about moral and philosophical issues. Asking people to reverse their positions in these areas is asking them to accept that they have hitherto lived their lives communicating falsely about the most essential issues in the world.

This is not to say that we should not try – or that because we have natural abilities in the realm of philosophy that philosophy is subjective, or requires these natural abilities – but it is very important for us to retain our humility in the face of our talents, and not damn those who struggle with what comes so easily to us. Contempt or hostility towards those lacking abilities in a particular area is not a mark of confidence or superiority, but rather insecurity and vanity, and will not save the world. If we are to be the teachers of mankind, we must first and foremost respect our students.

The Grave Danger of Self Defense

I get scads of emails about two positions I hold.

1. The principle of self-defense is relatively unimportant, and


2. You live a peaceful life, so you are proof that a stateless society can work.

A communicator must always take responsibility for misunderstandings, so, as a clarification, here is a more detailed description of what I mean.

1. Self-defense is a red herring

I talk about this in a podcast called “Forget about Self-Defense”, which has led many people to believe that I am a radical pacifist, who would not lift a finger to oppose a home invasion.

I perfectly support the principle of self-defense, but view it to be an unimportant – and, frankly, dangerous – principle in practice.

People who support “self defense” usually view it as a very important principle, central to life in society and crucial to questions of ethics.

I could not disagree more – and my disagreement is fundamental, since it deals more with methodology than conclusions.

To develop my ideas, I try to work empirically, from my own life to the lives of those I know, to general evidence, and then on up to the logical abstract world of concepts and principles. I think this is a more scientific (and anti-Platonic) approach, more grounded in real life, which eschews abstractions not derived from “real world” examples.

So when I think of the “right to self defense”, I think: “OK, when has this right been useful in my life? How many times have I had to stare down 12 ninjas with holding only a broken bottle and found this moral principle to be valuable? Conversely, when have I been in situations of imminent violence and worried about the principle of self-defense?”

And I have to say: well, never!

I grew up in a rough neighborhood, with lots of bullies, and let me tell you something – the principle of self-defense never really comes up with bullies, since they never attack anyone really capable of, or willing to, defending himself. (For more on this, see Bush’s approach to Iraq versus North Korea.)

I was only bullied a few times in my life, and each time the bully was approximately 12 times my size, or I was outnumbered approximately 12-1. “My lunch money? Absolutely, here you go, would you like a kidney too, sir?”

No possibility for self-defense. A nice idea in principle, but in reality…

I was also sent to boarding school, where you got caned for disobedience. Self defense? Impossible. Your best hope was self protection – i.e. put a comic book down your trousers and pray!

Now I have to pay 50% of my money in taxes. Self-defense against the state? Impossible!

Thus, when I look at my life, I find that I have never been in a single solitary situation in my life where self-defense was even a remotely viable strategy. Now I could be an anomaly, but I also have never met anyone who was ever able to use personal self-defense as a viable strategy.

Of course, I recognize that such situations do exist – just as agonizing decisions exist regarding brain function and euthanasia – but they are scarcely the norm, and surely not at – or even near – the top of most pressing moral issues.

And why is this issue even important? Why is focusing on “self defense” dangerous?

Well, because it’s so often used as a justification for the state. The argument runs something like this: “We all have the right to self-defense, but some people cannot defend themselves, so we need an agency that will defend them, which is the state.”

The logical – and moral – problem with this is, of course, that if people exist who cannot defend themselves from mere individual criminals, how on earth can they possibly defend themselves against the state? In other words, if you’re afraid of being exploited by violent people, is armed might of the modern state less dangerous than a mugger?

Turning to the state for self-protection is like avoiding a bee by running off a cliff.

Criminals exist, of course, and can be dangerous, and can do great harm – and it is the very fact that sociopaths exist that makes the creation of a state such a deadly mistake! Imagining that you can create a monopolistic agency of pure violence and not automatically attract sociopaths to populate it is one of the greatest illusions of the species! The more that you fear criminals, the less you should ever support the existence of the state! If criminals are dangerous, the state will be totally deadly. If criminals are not so dangerous, the state is unnecessary.

In order to preserve the right to “self defense”, we get the following absurdities:

• To protect their persons, people submit to states that draft them, declare wars, provoke attacks, and arrest and imprison citizens for non-violent “crimes”.


• To protect their property, people submit to states that strip that property through taxes, subject them to endless regulations, destroy their currency, load them with public debts, and openly that that property through the force of law.

Does that mean that we give up on the principle of self-defense? Of course not. But the real goal of “self-defense” should be the prevention of violence, rather than the affirmation of our right to shoot attackers. Moral philosophy is like medicine – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and currently, our doctors are on the verge of “healing us to death.”

1. You live a peaceful life, so you are an example of a stateless society.

People also get confused about this one – which is my fault, of course. I recently got an email from a woman who lived in a bad neighborhood telling me that I had no idea how violent society could be – and that without a government, society would dissolve into a death match of endless warring gangs etc etc etc.

This is very common – and interesting – argument. Of course, when I ask such people how the state is protecting them now, they tell me that it isn’t protecting them at all! What happens when she call the cops? Nothing! And is there welfare, drug gangs, public housing, government schools and so on in her neighborhood? Of course!

Thus her objection to a stateless society is fascinating, and speaks volumes about the effectiveness of state propaganda.

Such people see no contradiction between these four positions:

1. There is too much violence in my neighborhood to get rid of the state.


2. The state is responsible for most of that violence.


3. The state is not protecting me from the violence it creates.


4. Therefore getting rid of the state is impossible!

This would be akin to a sick person saying:

1. I am too sick to get rid of my doctor.


2. My doctor is poisoning me.


3. My doctor is not giving me an antidote to that poison.


4. Therefore changing doctors is impossible!

Do you see what a “death spiral” this sort of logic represents?

Either violence is not common in your world, in which case you do not need a state, or violence is common in your world, in which case the state, as ‘educator’ and ‘protector’, is primarily responsible for the dangers you face.

Either way, we need a new doctor. And time is running out.