Freedomain Radio FAQ Part 2

How can a society without a government pay for national defense?

Many people, when first hearing the concept of a stateless society, cannot imagine how collective defense could possibly be paid for the absence of taxation.

This is an important question to ask, but there is a way of answering it that also answers many other questions about collective action.

In any society, there are four possibilities that can occur in the realm of collective defense. The first is that no one wants to pay for collective defense. The second is that only a minority of people want to pay for collective defense; the third is that the majority of people want to pay for collective defense, and the fourth is that everyone wants to pay for collective defense.

Let's compare how these four possibilities play out in a state-based democracy:

1. No one wants to pay for collective defense. In this case, voters will universally reject any politician who proposes collective defense of any kind.
   
2. Only a minority of people want to pay for collective defense. In this case, no politician who proposes paying for collective defense will ever get into office, because he will never secure a majority of the votes.
   
3. The majority of people want to pay for collective defense. In this case, pro-defense politicians will be voted into office, and spend tax money on defense.
   
4. Everyone wants to pay for collective defense. This achieves the same outcome as number three.
   

Thus, all other things being equal, a democracy produces almost the same outcome as a stateless society – with the important exception of #2. If only a minority of people want to pay for defense, they cannot do so in a democracy, but can do so in a stateless society.

In a stateless society, if the majority of people are interested in paying for collective defense, it will be paid for. The addition of the government to the interaction is entirely superfluous – the equivalent of creating a Ministry devoted to communicating the pleasures of candy to children, or sex to teenagers.

However, the possibility exists that people are willing to pay for collective defense only if they know that everyone else is paying for it as well. This argument fails on multiple levels, both empirical and rational.

1. First of all, people tip waiters and give to charity, even though they know that some people never do.
   
2. Secondly, there is no reason why, in a stateless society, people should not have full knowledge of who has donated to collective defense. Agencies providing collective defense could easily issue a "donor card," which certain shops or employers might ask to see before doing business. Names of donors could also be put on a website, easily searchable, creating social pressures to donate.
   
3. Thirdly, when the money required for collective defense is stripped from taxpayers of the point of a gun, a basic moral tenet – and rational criteria – is violated. Citizens institute collective defense in order to protect their property—it makes no sense whatsoever to create an agency to protect property rights and then invest that agency with the power to violate property rights at will.
   
4. Fourthly, when collective defense is paid for by the initiation of the use of force, there is no rational ceiling to costs, and no incentive for efficiency – thus ensuring that costs escalate to the point where they become unsustainable, leaving the country vulnerable.
   

Finally, if military might is to be used exclusively for the defense of a geographical region, extensive standing armies are scarcely required. The invention of nuclear weapons has rendered invasion of a nuclear power impossible – as is shown by the historical fact that no nation possessing nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. In a nation of, say, 300 million citizens, how much would it cost each citizen per year to pay for the maintenance of a few dozen nuclear warheads? It seems hard to imagine such a program costing more than $300 million a year. Even if we assume that only half the citizens are earning an income, this national defense program would then run about two dollars per year per paying citizen. People lose more than that annually behind their couch cushions.

What about education?

The question of education follows the same pattern as the question of collective defense outlined above. However, there are certain additional pieces of information that can strengthen the case for a free market in education.

First of all, it is important understand that state education was not imposed because children were not being educated. Prior to the institution of government-run education, the literacy rate of the average American was over 90% - far better than it is now, after hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent "educating" children. Before the government forcefully took over the schools, there was almost no violence in schools, there were no school shootings, no violent gangs, no assaults on teachers – and it did not take more than two decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a reasonably-educated adult. Most of the intellectual giants of the 18^th and 19^th centuries – Founding Fathers included – did not even finish high school, let alone go to college.

Government education in America was instituted as a means of cultural control, due to a rising tribal fears about the growing number of non-Protestants in society – the "immigrant issue" of the time.

There are a number of core reasons that government education cripples children's minds; for the sake of brevity, we will deal with only one here.

It is reasonable to assume that the majority of parents want to give their children a good education – and this education must necessarily include the teaching of values, of the relationship between personal ethics and real-world choices. In any multicultural society, however, a common curriculum cannot include any specific values, for fear of offending various groups. Thus values must be stripped from education, turning its focus to rote memorization, bland technical skills (geometry, sports, wood shop), and neutral and propagandistic views of society and politics ("democracy is good!" "respect multiculturalism!" "recycle!"). This effectively kills the energetic curiosity of the young, turns school into a mind-numbing series of empty exercises, creates frustration among those needing stimulation, and engenders deep disrespect for educational system – and its teachers – who remain hypocritically indifferent to the welfare of the students. Combine this hostility and frustration with the easy money available through drug sales, and the possibility of surviving on welfare, and entire generations of youths become mentally crippled. The costs of this are beyond calculation, since the damage goes far beyond economics.

Yes, but how will poor children get an education if it is not paid for through taxes?

This reminds me of the old Soviet cartoon – two old women are standing in an endless line-up to buy bread. One says to the other: "What a terribly long line!" The other replies: "Yes, but just imagine – in the capitalist countries, the government doesn't even distribute the bread!"

Whenever I argue for a stateless society, I say: "The government should not provide 'X'." The response always comes back: "But how will 'X' then be provided?"

The answer is simple: "Since everybody is concerned that 'X' will not be provided, 'X' will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence." In other words, since everyone is concerned that poor children might not get an education because it costs too much, those children will be provided an education as a direct result of everyone's concern.

Either you will help poor children get an education, through charity or volunteering, or you won't. If you will help poor children get an education, you don't have to worry about the issue. If you will do nothing to help poor children get an education, it is pure hypocrisy to raise it as an issue that you claim to be concerned about.

That having been said, there are a number of ways that a free society can provide education that is far superior to the mess being inflicted on children now.

First of all, poor children are not currently getting any sort of decent education. The perceived risks of a stateless society cannot be rationally compared to a perfect situation in the here-and-now. Those most concerned with the education of the poor should be the ones most clamoring for the abolishment of the existing system. The statistics for poor children are absolutely appalling – and this should raise the urgency or finding a solution. It's one thing to say "You should never cross a road against the lights, even if there is no traffic." It is quite another thing to say "You should never cross a road against the lights, even if you are being chased by a lion." Those who oppose a stateless society always ignore the existence of the lion, thus adding their intellectual inertia to the weight of the status quo.

Secondly, much like the question of collective defense, the cost of education will be far lower in a free society. The $10,000-$15,000 a year currently being spent per-pupil in public schools is ridiculously overinflated. As an example, it would be far cheaper to buy a poor child a computer and an Internet connection than bus him to an expensive school. (If socialization is desired, play-dates could be arranged at local parks.)

Similarly, year-round accelerated education could help the child graduate several years earlier – and with tangible job skills to boot! The resulting increase in earnings would more than pay for the education – and many companies would scramble to offer loans to such children, knowing that they would be paid off soon after graduation. Thus education would be more beneficial – and, since there would be no war on drugs or automatic "welfare" in a free society, fewer self-destructive options would be available.

As for higher education, it is either recreational or vocational. If it is recreational, then it is about as necessary as a hobby, and thus cannot be considered a necessity. If it is vocational, such as medicine, then additional earnings will more than pay for the costs of the education. Businesses need accountants – thus those businesses will be more than happy to fund the college expenses of talented youngsters in return for a work commitment after graduation.

Talented but poor children will be sought after by schools, both for the benevolence they can show by subsidizing them, and also because high-quality graduates raise the prestige of a school, enabling it to increase fees.

In a stateless society, a tiny minority of poor children may slip through the cracks – but that is far better than the current situation, where most poor children slip through the cracks. The fact that some non-smokers will get lung cancer does not mean that we should encourage people to smoke. A stateless society is not a utopia, it is merely a utopia compared to a government society!

Even if I agree with you, how on earth can we possibly bring a stateless society about?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a stateless society is impossible to achieve. In fact, most of the hurdles have already been overcome. The efficiency of the free market is already well-established. The principle that violence is immoral is also generally-accepted. For many people, religion no longer has a monopoly on questions of ethics. Very few people believe that further expansions in the size and power of government will produce a substantially better society—in fact, very few people believe that the government is a moral agency at all. (People do still advocate for government programs – often couched in moral terms – but that is more because they know they can receive money from the state rather than as a result of the broad ethical approach.) Socialism is a moral ideal is dead; communism and fascism also; slavery has been rightly vilified and eliminated, and initiation of the use of force is in general considered immoral.

Thus many of the necessary agreements are in place to bring about a stateless society. How, then, can it happen?

The first virtue is always honesty; the second is always integrity. We must first tell the truth, and then we must live the truth.

The truth is that, in the most fundamental ways, we do not need the government's permission to be truly free.

The first thing that philosophers must do is lead by example. A key ingredient in the moral ideal of a stateless society is that there is no such thing as positive obligations. Being born in a country does create a moral obligation to pay taxes. Being poor does not create a moral obligation for others to give you money. Being successful does not make you a slave; failure does not give you the right to be a parasite. Having children does not create a moral obligation for others to give them an education. Getting old does not create a moral obligation for others to pay for your retirement.

And here is where we turn to the core of the Freedomain Radio philosophy: family.

Huh? What does family have to do with a stateless society?

The examples of religion and patriotism show that irrational ideals are easy to spread if the people who spread them are convincing. To free the world, it is not enough to know the truth – you must also convince others. Convincing others requires that you first convince yourself.

A doctor who fears to take the medicine that he prescribes can scarcely be considered convincing. A philosopher should not fear to live the values he espouses. If I believe that there is no such thing as positive obligations, then I must evaluate all my personal relationships using the same criteria.

We just examine our families first, since they are the least-chosen of all our relationships. We choose our wife, and our friends, but not our parents or siblings.

If no man has a right to my time and energy simply because he exists, then clearly my parents can make no such claim.

If my parents and siblings are wise, and moral, and good, then it is only just and reasonable – not to mention intensely pleasurable – to spend time with them. If, however, my parents are none of these things, then spending time with them is neither rational nor moral. I cannot legitimately advocate a stateless society while at the same time enabling and supporting unchosen positive obligations in my personal life.

This has both moral and practical dimensions. Our first – and most lasting – perception of authority is our parents. If our parents are unjust, abusive, negative, distant, unaffectionate, arbitrary, selfish and so on, then we cannot love them. Love is an involuntary response to virtue, and can only arise in the presence of vice as an empty and self-destructive label.

If we feel that we "owe" love to our parents for being born under their dominion, it is logically impossible to argue that we do not "owe" allegiance to our government for being born under its dominion. If our parents do not have to win our love through consistent virtue – as all love must be won – then neither must those in the government win our respect through consistent virtue. If we do not live the principle of voluntarism in our personal lives, it is nonsensical and pointless to advocate it in the realm of politics. If we owe allegiance to power with regards to our parents, we logically owe allegiance to power with regards to our governments as well. We cannot "love" power in the personal realm while despising it in the political realm.

We have no power over the government. We can defy it, at the cost of going to prison or being forced "off the grid." We do have power over our personal relationships – and it is in the application of moral theories to our personal lives that our greatest freedoms are to be found. I would rather pay 50% taxation and have a happy marriage than pay no taxes and have an unhappy marriage! The government can only take your money – unhappy relationships can drain your very soul.

If we consistently apply ethical principles to our personal lives, we gain enormous credibility when we advocate those principles to others in general.

But – the government is an agency of power – parents are not!

That is not true. Except in the most extreme dictatorships, parents have far more power over their children than governments have over their citizens. As an adult, you have many strategies to reduce the interference of government in your daily life – you can move, live off the grid, minimize your taxes, pay off the IRS and live free. As a child, because you could not leave your family, you were utterly dependent on the will and whim of your parents. As an adult, you will never again be as dependent on those in power as you were when you were a child.

Since parental power over children far outstrips state power over citizens, we must first free ourselves of bad parents before we can confront the state.

Philosophy is more about our personal relationships than abstract relationships like the state. The power of the state, in fact, is derived from the power of parents. A woman who demands freedom from state violence but then goes home to an abusive husband cannot be said to really understand the meaning of the word "freedom." Similarly, advocating some sort of abstract political freedom while suffering abusive, unpleasant, boring or negative relationships in your personal life displays similar ignorance.

If a plane depressurizes, you have to first place the oxygen mask on your own face before turning to help others. The same is true of philosophy.

The only way to free the world is to free yourself.

Freedomain Radio - Frequently Asked Questions Part 1

What is Freedomain Radio?

Freedomain Radio is a philosophical conversation based on empirical logic and the Socratic method, designed to help you bring the maximum freedom and happiness into your life.


Philosophy? Really? Isn't philosophy kind of, well – useless?

Post-modern philosophy, in general, yes. In terms of how you can make sense of your life, and make the kinds of decisions in the here and now that will make you happy in the future, absolutely not! Philosophy is the most extreme sport known to mankind. It is intense, grueling, exciting, challenging, ennobling and occasionally utterly terrifying. Here at Freedomain Radio, we do not focus on philosophy as an abstract science, but as an immediate, personal and tangible methodology. Philosophy will certainly help you understand politics and history, economics and epistemology, but most importantly, it will help you make rational decisions in your life – decisions that you know are correct.

What approach does Freedomain Radio take?

Freedomain Radio takes a simple and common sense approach to philosophy. Clearly, reality exists independent of your mind. You exist independent of me. Truth in your mind is fidelity to reality. Logic and evidence are the only ways of separating truth from opinion, consistency from conformity, fantasy from fact.

What about morality?

Morality is one of the most challenging sciences in human thought. Morality is a concept within the human mind, and as such does not exist in external reality, in the same way that gravity or rocks do. This does not mean that morality is subjective, or imaginary, or arbitrary. Numbers do not exist in external reality either, but that does not mean that mathematics is a subjective discipline.

Any moral theory must pass a number of scientific and rational hurdles in order to be considered potentially valid. It must be universal, logical, consistent, reversible – and it must both explain history and have the capacity to predict the future. Anyone who proposes any form of "preferential behavior" for humanity as a whole must submit that theory to a rational and scientific examination. If you are not interested in proposing any form of preferential behavior, that's no particular problem – however, you are then excluded from any debate about ethics. For more on the Freedomain Radio approach to morality, click here.

But – aren't you an anarchist?

Yes, I am an anarchist. Unfortunately, the term has been degraded through mythology to mean "a world without rules" – usually garbed in post-apocalyptic outerwear and riding a well-armed motorbike. This is nonsense, of course. "Anarchy" is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong. If violence is a bad way to solve problems, then the government is by definition immoral, since "government" always means a group of individuals who claim the right to use violence against everyone else, in the form of taxation, regulations etc.

But if there is no government, how can the inevitable conflicts in human society be resolved?

The most important thing in philosophy is to consistently question the premises of propositions. For instance, embedded in the above question is the premise that conflicts within human society are currently being resolved by governments. This is also pure nonsense. Governments are agencies of force – governments do not persuade, governments do not reason, governments do not motivate, governments do not encourage, governments do not resolve disputes. Governments have no more power to create morality then rape has to create love. A gun is only useful in self-defense; it cannot be used to create virtue.

For somebody who is an anarchist, you sure do sound like a politician! Wasn't that just a complete dodge of the question?

Excellent catch! Here is as good a place as any to introduce you to the concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs). This concept cannot answer every conceivable question you might have about dispute resolutions within a stateless society, but rather is a framework for understanding the methodology of dispute resolution – just as the scientific method cannot answer every possible question about the natural world, but rather points towards a methodology that allows those questions to be answered in a rational manner.

DROs are companies that specialize in insuring contracts between individuals, and resolving any disputes that might arise. For instance, if I borrow $1,000 from you, I may have to pay $10 to a DRO to insure my loan. If I fail to pay you back your money, the DRO will pay you instead. Obviously, as my credit rating improves, the cost of insuring my contracts will decline.

The DRO theory can be as complex as any other free market theory – and a lot of intellectual effort has gone into resolving how particular transactions might occur, such as multimillion dollar international contracts. Credible DRO theories have also been proposed that solve problems ranging from abortion to child abuse to murder to pollution. For more on DRO theory and practice, click here.

But – what about the roads?

The most important thing to understand about anarchism is that it is a moral theory which logically cannot be over-concerned with consequences. For instance, the abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, because slavery as an institution is innately evil. The abolition of slavery was not conditional upon the provision of jobs for every freed slave. In a similar manner, anarchic theory does not have to explain how every conceivable social, legal or economic transaction would occur in the absence of a coercive government. What is important is to understand that the initiation of the use of force is a moral evil. With that in mind, we can approach the problem of roads more clearly.

First of all, roads are currently funded through the initiation of force. If you do not pay the taxes which support road construction, you will get a stern letter from the government, followed by a court date, followed by policemen coming to your house if you do not appear and submit to the court's judgment. If you use force to defend yourself against the policemen who are breaking into your home, you will very likely be shot down.

The roads, in other words, are built at the point of a gun. The use of violence is the central issue, not what might potentially happen in the absence of violence.

That having been said, roads will be built by housing developers, mall builders, those constructing schools and towns – just as they were before the government took them over in the 19^th century.

Okay – here's a scenario for you: a guy builds a road that completely encircles a suburban neighborhood, and then charges $1 million for anyone to cross that road. Isn't he holding everyone who lives in that neighborhood hostage?

This is fundamentally impossible. First of all, no one is going to buy a house in a neighborhood unless they are contractually guaranteed access to roads. Thus it will be impossible for anyone to completely encircle the neighborhood. Secondly, even if it were possible, it would be a highly risky investment. Can you imagine going to investors with a business plan that said: "I'm going to try to buy all the land that surrounds the neighborhood, and then charge hugely high rates for anyone to cross that land." No sane investor would give you the money for such a plan. The risk of failure would be too great, and no DRO would enforce any contract that was so destructive, unpopular and economically unfeasible. DROs, unlike governments, must be appealing to the general population. If a DRO got involved with the encircling and imprisonment of a neighborhood, it would become so unpopular that it would lose far more business than it could potentially gain.

All right smarty-pants – what about this: the company that supplies water to a neighborhood suddenly decides to increase its rates by ten times – people are going to be forced to pay the exorbitant price, right?

First of all, if you are so concerned about people paying increasingly exorbitant prices for services, then it scarcely seems logical to propose the government as the solution to that problem. Taxes have risen immensely over the past 30 years, while services have declined.

However, even if we accept the premise of the problem, it is easily solved in a stateless society. First of all, no one will buy a house in a neighborhood without a contractual obligation that requires the supply of water at reasonable rates. Secondly, if the water company starts charging exorbitant prices, another company will simply move in and supply water in another form – in barrels, bottles or whatever. Thus raising prices permanently costs the water company its customers. Investors will quickly realize that the water company is shooting itself in the foot, and will align themselves with shareholders, resulting in a hostile takeover of the price-gouging water company. Given that this result will be known in advance, no CEO would be allowed to pursue such a self-destructive course. The consumers are perfectly safe – it is only when a government exists that can be manipulated by corporations to prevent competition that the consumers are truly in danger.

Okay – what if two DROs have different rules – isn't that just going to result in endless civil war?

No. First of all, it is unlikely that DROs would have wildly different rules, because that would be economically inefficient. Cell phone companies use similar protocols, so that they can interoperate with each other. Railroad companies tend to use the same gauge, so that trains can travel as widely as possible. Internet service providers exchange data with other Internet service providers, passing e-mails back and forth. Like evolution, the free market is more about cooperation than pure competition. If a DRO wants to create a new rule, that rule will be fairly useless unless other DROs are willing to cooperate with it – just as a new e-mail program is fairly useless unless it uses existing protocols. This need for interoperability with other DROs will inevitably keep the number of new rules to the most economically efficient minimum.

New rules will also add to the costs for DRO subscribers—and if it costs them more money than it saves, the DRO will lose business.

But – won't the most successful DRO just arm itself, violently eliminate all the other DROs, and emerge as a new government?

First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in the future.

Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers: accountants, executives and so on. DROs are as likely to become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.

Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turn itself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to prevent it. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused to submit to "arms inspections." Furthermore, DRO customers would also not take very kindly to their DRO becoming an armed institution – and their rates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have to provide its regular services, as well as pay for all those black helicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates.

Are there any examples of anarchic societies being successful in the past?

There are, but that is not the essential question. Again, the essential aspect of anarchic theory is the moral rule banning the initiation of the use of force. Anarchists advocate a stateless society because governments are evil. When slavery was abolished for the first time in human history, there was no example of a successful slave–free society — if that had been a requirement, then slavery would never have been abolished.

That having been said, I can absolutely and confidently point towards a nonviolent society that you're intimately aware of – you. I am guessing that you do not use violence directly to achieve your aims. It seems likely to me that you did not hold your employer hostage until you got your job; I also doubt that you keep your "girlfriend" locked in the basement, or that you threaten to shoot your "friends" if they do not join you on the dance floor. In other words, you are the perfect example of a stateless society. All of your personal relationships are voluntary, and do not involve the use of force. You are an anarchic microcosm – to see how a stateless society might work, all you have to do is look in the mirror.

Statism and Moral Responsibility

One of the most horrendous aspects of the government is the degree to which it dilutes, undercuts and destroys moral responsibility within society. Old women who would never rob their grandchildren at gunpoint feel perfectly entitled to cash their Social Security check. Gentle mothers who would pale at the thought of spanking their children will march self righteously for "free" daycare. Corporations who would never imagine assaulting their customers assiduously lobby for legal benefits – or to escape regulations.

Sadly, the worst effects of the state are not always domestic. Overseas Imperialism creates generations of guilt-ridden sociopaths who, having murdered whatever foreigners their commanders pointed at, bring that moral horror home and spread it through their friends, family and children. Having been lured to the military with promises of honor and noble self-defense, they find themselves in positions that are hard to morally distinguish from your average hitman, who asks no questions when pulling the trigger.

The gaping wound at the heart of our culture – why have we murdered? – creates a violent antipathy to basic truths that only leads to further lies. In a recent episode of "60 Minutes," a father was asked why he and his son enlisted to go to Iraq. "Because of 9/11," he replied. The reporter – obviously uncomfortable – could only ask: "So you make that connection?" The obvious response – "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" – is hard, because when people have killed and died for a cause, questioning the moral validity of that cause becomes more and more difficult. The alternative to the fantasy of "patriotic defender" – the reality of "gullible murderer" – becomes increasingly volatile as more and more blood soaks through the verbal defenses of society. When people kill for a lie, they also murder the truth.

The connections required to link the tangible benefits of receiving state monies to the abstract violence that makes it possible are lengthy and complex. Expecting the average man to understand the violence at the root of the pleasant kindergarten he drops his child off at is like expecting the average Christian to understand the translation difficulties between Aramaic, Greek and the King James Bible. In moral philosophy, just as in nutrition and medicine, we need experts to make the causal connections for us. Asking society to learn the truth about statism from its disastrous effects is like asking people to learn about the dangers of smoking by getting lung cancer. Experts need to isolate the variables and make the causal connections clear.

In the absence of expertise, human nature works against the truth. Achieving and maintaining good health requires knowledge – only eating whatever tastes good and exercising when you feel like it inevitably results in disaster. We respond positively to sugars and fats, which were rare in the infancy of our species, and prefer inactivity to activity, as an evolutionary means of preserving energy. Short-term gratifications – when pursued exclusively – lead to disaster. We cannot be expected to know this in advance, which is the only time it will do us any good. Thus we need experts to show us negative consequences before we experience them.

It is exactly the same with the state. The pursuit of short-term gratification inevitably leads to disaster. As experts in philosophy, politics and economics, we must fight against the tendency of people to pursue short-term interests by pointing out the long-term consequences of their actions. In many ways, ethical instruction is as simple as: "eat candy, get cavities."

This means that we must show people that we as philosophers practice what we preach – that we are willing to abjure short-term comfort for the sake of long-term gains. As moralists, we must display the very behavior we wish to inculcate. This means repeatedly pointing out uncomfortable truths to people, despite the inevitable and negative consequences. Some such difficult truths are:

• Going to Iraq to shoot Iraqis is murder, since it is not violence for the sake of immediate self-defense.
  
• US foreign aggression is responsible for the hatred that foreigners bear towards the US.
  
• Muslims do not "hate America for its freedom." Americans were far freer in the 19^th century, and suffered no Muslim attacks. Switzerland is also free – and far closer – yet suffers no Muslim attacks, because the Swiss keep their guns inside their own borders.
  
• The US government is by far the world's largest arms seller. The idea that your government exists to protect you from foreign enemies, while assiduously arming foreigners, is too ridiculous to be believable.
  
• Like the institution of slavery, the state is an agency of violence, evil to the core. It cannot be reformed, but must be abolished.
  
• Almost everything you were told about society in public schools is propaganda, directly detrimental to your own self-interest.
  
• Policemen are not primarily there to protect you, but to threaten you if you do not pay your taxes.
  
• Our existing system is utterly unsustainable, and will collapse within 10 to 15 years at the outside.
  

These are all bitter pills for most people to swallow, of course – but there is an even worse one, which overarches all of these issues, which is:

• There is nothing accidental about the fact that you were – and are – told all these lies.
  

It is very hard for the average citizen to realize that, in his relationship with his government, he is little more than a cash cow for taxation, a breeding animal for future taxpayers, and cannon fodder for war. People point to minor successes in the fight against the government, such as specific relaxations of regulations, slight tax cuts and so on – but that is all pure nonsense! A farmer who finds that his cows are dying because they don't have enough room to move will certainly increase the size of their cage – but that is so he can continue to exploit them, not because he dreams of setting them free! The low birthrate of many Western countries—the inevitable result of the fact that mammals do not breed well in captivity – is currently prompting the return of some money to taxpayers in the form of breeding incentives, but that is scarcely a victory against the government!

Naturally, it is very hard to get the average citizen to understand the danger he faces at the hands of his government. Doctors face the same issue when trying to get their patients to drop unhealthy habits. Too many people only listen to their doctors after they have had a heart attack – and only because their doctor predicted that heart attack. This is an essential aspect of what we are up to as libertarians. We must openly and repeatedly tell people that the system will self-destruct, that it is evil and rotten to the core, that the army and police are not noble, that currency is an illusion, debt is real and the countdown is almost at zero. There is no possibility that we can prevent the coming crash – it's far too late for that – but because we can accurately predict it, we are more likely to have credibility after the fact.

This is the paradox of the current system. The government – and the citizens they rule – are nothing but individuals, but individual ethics don't really matter when the cultural belief systems as a whole are corrupt and false. Morality is a form of science, and requires knowledge, logic and empirical testing to validate. Currently, people have no idea what is good for them, any more than a caveman knew about the heliocentric solar system. In the absence of rational philosophy, the hedonism of the moment is the only possible "guide." If you know nothing of cavities, weight gain and diabetes, what is to stop you from eating candy? If you know nothing of the elemental evils of the state, what is to stop you from grabbing whatever you can whenever you can? And really, who can blame you for trying? If you don't pick up that hundred dollar bill lying on the sidewalk, it's not going to stay there forever.

This is where I find sympathy for my fellow citizens. I happen to love philosophy – particularly ethics – but that is my particular fetish. I cannot expect everyone else to be as fascinated by the subject—and that is entirely as it should be! I study philosophy, you study medicine. You cannot philosophize, I cannot prescribe – neither of us can be condemned for our respective lack of knowledge, since every choice involves an infinity of opportunity costs.

But I do expect you, as my surgeon, to tell me the truth, no matter how unpleasant it might be for me.

And we, as philosophers, must tell the truth to our world, no matter how unpleasant it is for others. A doctor who lies, who covers the truth to provide false comfort—for his own comfort really—is worse than no doctor at all.

If you pick up a scalpel, you must be prepared to cut.

My Son: Klan Reformer - A Political Fable

By Stefan Molyneux
Host, Freedomain Radio
http://www.freedomainradio.com/

Ah, my son, my son…

He’s 40 years old, and really needs to change careers.

When he was 20, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, because he was concerned that the Klan was getting too big, too aggressive. In those days, they were lynching some poor man every week, which he felt was wrong. He felt that the Klan should limit itself to a lynching every month, and that things were getting waaaay out of hand.

I’ve spent my life arguing that the Klan should be abolished, so I had mixed feelings about his decision. Without a doubt, I would rather the Klan lynch someone once a month rather than once a week, so I was somewhat tempted by his ‘work from the inside’ approach, but I had some significant doubts that it could work.

“But dad,” he said, those many years ago, “I can get the word out that the Klan should only be lynching someone once a month, rather than once a week, which will be a step in the right direction, right?”

“Well, I’m not sure,” I said uneasily. “Won’t people be getting the message that lynching is good, rather than that lynching is bad? You’re legitimizing the principle.”

“But I want to reduce the number of lynchings, dad!” he replied. “In an ideal world, sure, there should be no lynchings at all, but I’m going to bring that number down, which is a step in the right direction, right? I mean, it’s better if fewer people get lynched, right?”

I was uneasy, because something just sort of – seemed wrong with his approach, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.

For the past twenty years, my son has been notorious in the Klan. He draws a paycheck, goes to meetings – and has been given control over his very own district of Klan loyalists.

To his credit, whenever the Klan Council votes on whether to have a lynching, my son usually votes ‘no.’ Often he’s the only one casting a negative vote.

Still, since he joined the Klan with the goal of reducing lynching, lynching has gone up and up and up.

Now, the Klan that 20 years ago only lynched a man a week is now lynching a man a day.

And my son’s district? Has he been able to reduce the lynching in the area he has control over?

No. In fact, the lynching in his own district has actually gone up over the years.

When I ask him about this, his answer is always the same: “Sure, dad, but I don’t have that much control over who gets lynched in my district. I oppose it, of course, but there’s not a whole lot I can do.”

A few months ago, my son came over and told me he was running for Grand Wizard.

“If I become Grand Wizard,” he said, “I will be able to veto most of the lynchings that come up for a vote. Then I’ll really have the power to reduce the number of people getting killed or beaten up.”

“But son!” I exclaimed in horror. “People – other than you, let’s say – only join the Klan so they can lynch people. If all they want to do is lynch people, why on earth would they vote you in? And if you somehow got in, the moment you stopped them from lynching, they’d just toss you out! If you stop the Klan from lynching, it’s not the Klan anymore!”

“No,” he said earnestly, “it’s still the Klan – it’s just a smaller Klan that lynches less!”

“Twenty years ago,” I said softly, “you said that in a perfect world, there would be no lynching at all…”

“Sure,” he said, coloring slightly. “But I can’t talk about that. About there being no lynching at all. I mean, that would be mad – I’d never get elected Grand Wizard!”

“Right, so you’re on a ‘pro-lynching’ platform, you just want less lynching.”

“Yes,” he said, nodding vigorously, immune to irony.

“So it’s wrong to lynch a lot, but it’s right to lynch a little.”

“Well, ideally, there should be no lynching at all…”

“But that’s not what you’re telling people. You’re telling people that the right thing to do is lynch less.”

“Sure – because less lynching is better than more lynching.”

“But no lynching is better, right?”

“Yes, in an ideal world…”

“So why don’t you tell people that? That you want to take over the Klan in order to abolish it!”

He laughed. “Oh, I don’t think that’s the right idea. Right now, we need the lynchings. We need the Klan. It’s just gotten too big.”

Round and round we went, from pragmatism to principle, back and forth… It was most exasperating!

After a public debate where my son roused a real ruckus by openly stating that the reason that certain minorities hated whites was because of white support for the Klan that lynched them, his numbers shot up from somewhere near 0% to around 3%.

He came right over, ecstatic. “I’m really getting the message out, dad!”

I grimaced. “Well – I hate to say this, son, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot.”

“Wh – what?” His voice hardened instantly.

“You say that minorities hate the Klan because of the lynchings, right?”

“Right!”

“But the number of lynchings has gone up like five or six times since you joined the Klan – and the number of lynchings in your district has also gone up!”

“But I vote against most of the lynchings!”

“But son! You are in the Klan! You support lynchings! How can you say that the Klan is immoral?”

“Because, as I’ve said about ten thousand times over the past twenty years, dad, there’s too much lynching!”

“So you think that minorities will love you now? When you say they have every right to hate the lynching that you support less of? My God son – when did it happen that the best possible outcome a good man could hope for was to present himself as the lesser of two evils?”

“Because change has to be gradual, dad!” he cried out. “Has your podcasting and scribbling stopped even one lynching? At least I’m out in the real world trying to get something done!”

“And what, after twenty years, have you achieved? You said to me, long ago, ‘Dad, I’m in this to reduce the numbers of lynchings. And you’ve been taking Klan money and hanging out with these thugs for decades, and what is the outcome? More lynchings. More Klan power! So what have you achieved?”

He jumped up. “Well, yeah, sure, there are more lynchings now, but can you imagine what would have happened if I hadn’t joined the Klan? Instead of just one lynching a day, there could be two or three!”

“How do you know that? That’s just something you tell yourself, so you don’t feel that you compromised your principles for nothing. There’s no evidence of that!”

“I’ve voted against most of the lynchings!”

“And the lynchings happened anyway! And still you stay with these thugs!”

Suddenly he changed tactics. “Why do you care so much what I do? We’re both for less lynching, we’re both on the same side of the fence, we shouldn’t be fighting each other.”

“But you are fighting me,” I said softly. “Don’t you understand that?”

There was a long silence. Our mutual anger was spent.

“What do you mean?”

“Son, you think that lynching should be reformed, I think it should be abolished. It’s like slavery.” I sighed. “In the 19th century, a lot people were very uneasy about slavery. Deep down, they knew that it was wrong. But they also were afraid of real change. And there were two groups: the reformers and the abolitionists. The reformers promised people that slavery could be made more humane, that the slaves could be treated better, beaten and raped less – and so slavery did not have to be eliminated. They worked to pass laws against the extreme mistreatment of slaves, held rallies, raised money – an enormous amount of time, energy and resources were wasted trying to reform slavery. And, as they worked and worked, for decades and decades, more slaves got beaten and raped, conditions got worse and worse, and – the worst thing in my view – people uncomfortable with slavery were given the comforting illusion that it did not have to be abolished.

“The abolitionists, on the other hand, knew that slavery could not be reformed, that is was evil through and through, and that it had to be abolished. And their most dangerous opponents were not those who were unabashedly pro-slavery. Their most dangerous opponents were the reformers.”

He rolled his eyes. “So – you’re saying that I’m your enemy now?”

“No, because we’ve never had this conversation. And for that I’m sorry. But what you’re doing, what you’ve been doing for twenty years, is telling people that the Klan can be good if only the right person is in charge. You’re giving people false hope, because the Klan can never be good. And so they shrink back from abolishing the Klan, because that seems extreme, because here’s this smart, well-spoken person who’s been in the Klan for twenty years, who’s saying that the Klan is good and necessary, and all we have to do is put him in charge of it. So when I come along and say that the Klan is immoral, and needs to be abolished, you know what people say to me? They say, ‘Nahhh, I’m going to support your son, he has great plans to reform the Klan, I agree with a lot of what he says, there is too much lynching – we don’t have to abolish the Klan, that’s too extreme.’ And that’s been going on for the last twenty years, son. You’re giving people a false choice that helps them avoid the necessity of change, from confronting the evil in their midst. And you legitimize the Klan by claiming to be a good man and being part of it. I’m telling you this from the bottom of my heart, son: if you did not exist, the Klan would have to invent you.”

There was a long pause.

“All right, dad,” said my son eventually, raising his eyes to mine. “I’ll drop my run for Grand Wizard. On one condition.”

“Anything!” I cried out, overjoyed.

“You drop your support for Ron Paul.”

Man, Family and State

About a year and a half ago, I started recording libertarian podcasts in my car during my drive to and from work. It seemed like a fun way to kill the time in traffic, and it also gave me a chance to help clarify my thoughts with regards to various issues that people had written to me about after my first articles were published on Lew Rockwell. At first, my podcasts were largely concerned with the economics of anarcho-capitalism, and details regarding the implementation of my theory of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), and how they could replace existing state functions.

I was impressed at how quickly this turned into a very involved philosophical conversation. At first, a few thousand podcasts a month were downloaded -- then, this figure began to rise inexorably. In March of 2007, 200,000 Freedomain Radio podcasts were downloaded, and tens of thousands of videos were viewed.

The Internet is a wonderful medium for philosophy, because it can instantly distribute ideas to hundreds of thousands of people, and through messageboards, can stimulate fascinating discussions on the resulting topics. Plus, philosophy was originally an oral art form, designed to be spoken and discussed, not just read.

Also, because of the amount of time people spend doing things which preclude reading, but which do not preclude listening, such as going to the gym, doing groceries, doing laundry, going for a walk, or driving, podcasts can reach interested parties in a way that books never can.

The rigor of this new philosophical conversation was far beyond anything I had experienced before. As a community, we certainly talked about economics, politics and contemporary events, but it quickly became evident to me that where there is disagreement on fundamentals, there can be no real agreement on details -- and that, relative to metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, politics is a mere detail.

So, with the help of the listeners, I began to define the methodologies that we could use to help determine truth from falsehood -- largely based on the scientific method, empirical observations and rigorous logic. And we made great progress, or so it seemed...

And then, my wife got involved.

My wife, a practicing psychotherapist, said something extraordinary to me after reading one of my tracts on moral philosophy and the evils of the state. Looking up, she said, "It all starts with the family."

It all starts with the family.

We mulled this over for some weeks, and then I decided to expand the conversation from philosophy to psychology and, in conjunction with my wife, began to trace our susceptibility to statism from our very first experiences of family life. In a series of podcasts, I put forth the proposition that the state is merely an effect of the family, and thus in order for libertarianism to really take root and flourish within society, what was required was not only a reevaluation of man, state and society, but a rigorous moral examination of the most essential social unit: the family.

This is when the conversation really began to take off!

I received hundreds of e-mails from people about their experiences of authority within their own families, within the school system, within churches and other cultural institutions, which in general supported the role that our personal experiences with authority plays in our later susceptibility to impersonal authority, in the form of the state.

So far, this new direction seems to be really bearing fruit. If our adult susceptibilities to political hegemonies are rooted in our childhood experiences of authority, this helps explain why decades of talking about the evils of the state has done precious little to prevent the growth of the state. If statism is primarily an emotional reaction, or psychological defense mechanism, rather than a rational deduction, then it cannot be opposed with logical argument alone, but rather must be patiently undone through empathy and introspection.

Naturally, to many this all sounds too ridiculous to be believable! Responding to the statement "I believe that the state is both moral and necessary," with the question "Tell me about your parents," seems like a blinding non sequitur. However, it can be a very powerful approach, since it is based on a simple and empirical observation:

No rational examination of the evidence would lead any sane man to statism -- yet statism is the default position in society. Since statism is so blatantly irrational, it cannot have become so widespread through rational argument. Thus, there must be another source to the pervasive belief in the virtues of governments.

To many libertarians, the answer seems clear: children are turned into statists in public schools, where conformity and a deep, fearful "respect" for arbitrary authority is instilled day after day.

However, this cannot be the full extent of the story. Anyone who has spent any time around toddlers during the "terrible twos" knows that the willpower and independence of very young children is a near-superhuman force. It strains credibility to imagine that a single kindergarten teacher can restrain in 30 children the force that two parents find difficult to deal with in one child.

Thus it must be that many children are delivered into the public school system with their independence already undermined, and filled with unease in the face of arbitrary authority.

This lesson can only have come from their parents.

This does not mean that all parents are malevolents beasts out to destroy their children, but rather that the virtue of subjugating oneself to arbitrary authority -- which is another way of saying that arbitrary authority is always virtuous -- tends to reproduce itself generation by generation. Children who are subjugated to the mere authority of their parents -- without reference to objective values -- tend to grow up with a blind spot about the dangers of arbitrary power, and to assume its virtue in the absence of evidence.

This approach also helps explain another baffling aspect of libertarianism -- why people take political arguments so personally. How many times have you been involved in political or economic discussions with someone who gets irrationally offended by your arguments? Unless you are Condoleeza Rice, if you and I are discussing foreign policy, it has about as much relevance to our daily decisions as the existence of a gas planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. People rarely get offended about mathematics, but economics and politics seems to light an enormous fuse in far too many people.

At Freedomain Radio, the theory which may explain this goes something like this:

• When most people are talking about the government, they are really talking about their parents.
• When you criticize the government, most people unconsciously interpret that as you criticizing their parents.
• If you equate government power with immorality, most people unconsciously hear you saying that their parents are evil.

This theory, while it might seem outlandish, has proven to be remarkably accurate in practice -- but there is no reason to take my word for it! One of the amazing things about philosophy is that we get to work with empirical data from our own lives. Both I and hundreds of board members at Freedomain Radio have found this to be a very powerful and effective way of figuring out whether it is possible to have a rational discussion with someone about philosophy, economics, or politics -- but you can easily determine for yourself whether this approach has any value. Just ask about the personal history of those you debate with, and see if any patterns emerge.

When we talk about the state, we are really talking about authority, which is nothing more or less than the power that one person has over another. When children are young, each family operates as a kind of "mini state." Just as, in the democratic ideal, states exists to serve and protect their citizens, in the familial ideal, parents exist to serve and protect their children. Just as citizens are considered participatory members of the state -- though ultimately subject to its authority -- so children are considered to be participatory members in the family -- though ultimately subject to the authority of the parents. The ideal within the democratic paradigm is that the more virtuous citizens are, the less authority the state is justified in wielding. The same is true in the familial ideal -- parental authority should only be exercised when children are acting badly. From Socrates onwards, the goal of an ideal state has always been considered the same -- to inculcate virtue in its citizens, and thus reduce or eliminate the need to exercise authority over them. The same is true in ideal parenting, which has always been considered the process of inculcating virtue in children, so that parental controls and authority can be relaxed -- and ideally, eliminated.

However, libertarians understand that the modern state does not follow the democratic ideal -- in fact, it acts in direct contradiction to it. If the power of the state is inversely proportional to the virtue of its citizens -- in other words, the more moral people are, the less state power is required -- then clearly there is one sure method to increasing the power of the state, which is to make citizens more and more immoral -- either within their own minds, or in reality. If citizens can be convinced that immorality is on the rise, and the power of the state can be "legitimately” expanded, under the illusion that an increase in state power will reverse the trend towards decadence.

Of course, as libertarians well know, quite the reverse is true. Increases in state power -- banning drugs, the welfare state etc -- always lead to increases in immorality -- both real and imagined -- and thus a vicious circle is created wherein the state feeds its own increase, a process which generally only ends in bankruptcy and collapse.

But where is it that people get the idea that power is legitimized by the immorality of those it controls? This idea must already have been absorbed by the time the children go to public school, since public-school teachers merely capitalize on this belief.

It must come from parents -- and this is primarily not the fault of parents, but rather of philosophers.

Societies which do not have an objective and commonly understood methodology for determining truth and falsehood, good and evil, inevitably have to end up substituting authority for virtue. Statism leads to war, science leads to conferences. If, to educate children in what they should and should not do, parents have to end up invoking authority rather than objective values, then the best that they can do is to teach their children to be obedient, not to be moral. To conform, not to think. To bully or be bullied, but not to approach others as equals.

How many times do children hear these clichés of parenthood? “Don't be selfish.” “Share.” “Be Nice.” “Be Polite.” “Be Considerate.” “Think of others.” "Don't push." And so on and so on and so on. All of these injunctions to children are mere orders, empty of meaning, thought or reasoning. The silent expression at the end of all of these orders to children is “because I'm telling you to.” Children cannot ask "why," because there is no answer. Parents cloak these orders in the moral authority of objective values, but cannot explain how they came about, and so strenuously resist being questioned.

Thus the greatest sin for children becomes disobedience, not irrationality. The worst thing that they can do is not fail to think or examine evidence, but to defy the will of those in authority.

And what is the will of their parents based on? Objective reality? Rational values? Of course not. The will of their parents is based on the expectations of everyone else. Conformity with social norms becomes the eternal absolute, a dog chasing its own tail.

If children have this experience with their parents, how will they experience the state when they become adults? Will they be able to say that values exist independent of authority, which authority itself must be subject to? It seems unlikely -- almost impossible -- given their own experiences with their parents. Most people do not have the willpower or intellectual strength to create values independent of their personal histories. In the realm of values, most of us just blindly reproduce what came before. Great philosophers are as rare as great scientists, and expecting the average population to reach such heights is like asking everyone to be a movie star.

Once children learn that morality is conformity with the will of those in authority, this allegiance is easily transferred to the State through the public school system.

And then, when some libertarian comes along, equating the state with evil, unconscious defenses rear their ugly heads, since what is really happening is that the original and irrational authority of the parents is being questioned. This is why people react to arguments about the immorality of the state as if you were waving a hot poker in their face.

As my wife said, "It's not about the state. It all starts with the family.”

Having come to this realization, we have spent the last year or so in the Freedomain Radio conversation attempting to find ways to get through these psychological defenses, so that we can have rational debates about the nature of authority and virtue without provoking aggressive or defensive reactions in people. We've had some good successes, though there is always further to go!

I invite you to join in this conversation, because I think it is essential. I am as passionate and committed an anti-statist as I was I was 16, but I think that now I have some new and powerful tools, both for understanding why this conversation has been so difficult in the past, and how to make it far, far easier in the future. If we understand the emotional and personal sensitivity of these issues for others, we can design our conversation to get to the real root of the issues, rather than dealing with the mere symptoms, and focus on personal freedom first.

We cannot make men free by getting rid of the state. But we can get rid of the state by making men free.

The Hypocrisy of Gun Control

Stefan Molyneux
Host, Freedomain Radio
www.freedomainradio.com

As we saw with the Virginia Tech shootings, whenever guns are pointed at the wrong people, by the wrong people, the knee-jerk reaction is to want to ban guns. There are two important aspects to the question of gun control, however, which have not been discussed in the recent anti-gun hysteria.

Most gun control arguments are based on the “argument from effect,” or the belief that the question can be settled by appealing to evidence. In general, the question runs thus:

• Do guns promote crime or diminish it?

Unfortunately, the “argument from effect” can never decisively answer any question – just as, in the absence of a theory of gravitation, measuring the falling rate of individual items does little good. Rocks fall down, helium balloons fall up, and no progress is made.

The question of gun control can only be settled in relation to a logical theory of morals, and to an appeal to incontrovertible evidence. Let's step through two examples of this in action.

Incontrovertible Evidence
If you ask someone whether it is moral to sell handguns for profit to known criminals, the answer is almost invariably “no” (and if it isn't, RUN!). If handguns are ideally used for self-defense, selling them to active criminals can be considered a fairly negative act.

How would we feel about a man who made his fortune selling guns to a mass murderer? Would we put him in charge of disarming a country? What if he also sold RPGs and tanks and chemical weapons to known mass murderers?

Yet this is exactly what governments do, by selling billions of dollars of weapons to despotic tyrants the world over – and the US government leads the pack in this blood-profiteering.

If it is wrong to make profits selling arms to criminals, then we must abolish the government, not give it additional powers to disarm us. If it is not immoral to sell arms to anyone – even criminals – then gun control is a non-issue.

Logic

In general, the argument for gun control comes down to this.

• Guns are used to commit crimes.
• A crime is defined as the initiation of violence against a peaceful citizen.
• Thus guns must be restricted or banned, in order to reduce crime.

It is easy to see the illogic of this argument. How does the government go about banning guns? Why, by initiating violence against those who possess them “illegally.” Thus there is no way to ban guns without initiating the use of force – in other words, a certain crime must be committed for the sake of possibly preventing an unknown crime at some point in the future. We might as well jump off a cliff when we are 20 to prevent the possibility of falling off a cliff when we are 70.

It is important to understand that those who love state power will use any argument to increase it. When arguing about gun control – or any other moral issue – steer clear of the “argument from effect,” and spend the effort to define your terms from the ground up. It is only by digging that we shall uproot this tree.

Locked in the Trunk of a Car: A Political Solution to Shopping

Now that my wife has started taking political science courses, things are getting really confusing at my house. Just this morning there was a knock at our front door. Opening it, I saw an enormous man, who asked for my wife.

“Actually, I think she’s just heading out to go shopping,” I said, my eyes narrowing just a little.

“Yeah,” he drawled, a toothpick working back and forth across his lips like a little oar. “I know. That’s what I’m here for.”

I stared at him, then shrugged. A personal shopper? Professional bag-toter? Foot-masseuse? Who knew?

I heard my wife coming downstairs. “Ah!” she exclaimed. “Excellent, I’m just ready!”

“All right,” growled the man. He pulled out a large burlap sack from under his coat. “Lean forward,” he said to my wife, lifting the sack over her head.

I made a motion to grab his arm, then decided to use words instead. “What are you doing?” I demanded – not weakly, I hoped.

My wife held up her hand, smiling at the man. “It’s okay,” she said. “I’m afraid my husband is a libertarian.”

The big man rolled his eyes, then sighed and crossed his arms, leaning up against the door frame.

“You see, honey,” my wife smiled, “I really want to go shopping…”

“So this… man gets to put you in a sack?”

“Of course! That’s how it works. I didn’t really understand it until I started taking political science, but it’s so radiantly clear now!”

“What is?”

“Well, before, when I wanted to go shopping, I wasn’t very efficient. I just grabbed my purse and my car keys, went to the mall, and just – shopped. I mean, how crazy was that? Now, I finally understand how it’s supposed to be done. So when I want to shop, I call this fine gentleman, who takes my credit card, puts me in a sack, puts the sack in the trunk of my car, then drives me to the mall and does my shopping for me – and buys quite a bit for himself as well! Now isn’t that so much better?” Her eyes shone.

“Seriously, honey – I have no idea how that even makes sense, let alone could be ‘better’!”

“Honey,” she said soothingly, “this is how it is supposed to be done. If I want to do something, I call a man up who forces me to do it! What could be better? It’s perfect!”

“Do you get to keep your car?”

My wife looked inquiringly at the large man, sunning himself in our doorway. He shrugged. “Dunno. I guess I could use it for a day or two. I’ll give you a call when I’m done with it, and you can come and pick it up. Okay?”

“No, it’s not okay!” I fume. “If my wife wants to go shopping, she doesn’t need you to force her to go shopping, and buy things for yourself besides!”

“Sweetie,” my wife said soothingly. “It’s exactly how things are supposed to work.” She tapped her fingernails against her front teeth. “It’s exactly how we help the poor with welfare programs, right?”

“What?”

“Well, we as voters want to help the poor, right? So we vote politicians in who force us to help the poor. They take our money, spend it on the poor as they see fit, and buy a lot of things for themselves as well! And if that way of doing things is good enough for something as important as helping the poor, surely it is good enough for something as inconsequential as my shopping expeditions! Am I right, or am I right?”

“But – if we want to help the poor so badly that we vote politicians in who force us to help the poor, then what do we need the politicians for in the first place? Why don’t we just help the poor ourselves?”

“Ah,” she said with a triumphant grin, “that’s because we are too selfish to help the poor ourselves!”

“But if we’re too selfish to help the poor ourselves, then surely we would never vote politicians in who would force us to help the poor! And if we don’t want to help the poor, then the government will never do it for us, because we’d never vote in a politician who promised that! So if the majority of people want to help the poor, then they don’t need to vote politicians in to force them to help the poor, right?”

For a moment, she seemed confused. “Well…”

“I mean, look what’s happening here! In the past, if you wanted to go shopping, you just went to the mall and bought whatever you wanted! Now, look at all this extra overhead and complication – this guy has to come and put you in a sack, and drive you to the mall in the trunk of your car, and then shop for what he thinks you might want, and buy stuff for himself as well. How is that more efficient – or in any way better – than what happened before?”

She frowned. “No, that’s…”

“If we get all these politicians to force us to give them money to help the poor, what happens if they spend money in ways that don’t help the poor? What if they decide to spend more money on themselves than on the poor? Can we get our money back? You see, if we want to help the poor – or the sick, or the old, or whoever – then we’ll just do it, and we don’t need the government to force us to do it. If the government reflects the will of the people, then it doesn’t need to force those people to do things. If the government does not reflect the will of the people, then it is mere tyranny. Do you see what I mean?”

“Yes, but…” My wife scowled, trying to reason her way out of the fog of statism.

“I mean, who told you all this stuff?”

The big man leaned forward. “I did,” he growled.

“Yes,” said my wife distractedly. “Sorry I didn’t introduce you. This is my professor of political science.”

He stretched out his enormous hand. I stared at it.

“Hey,” said the professor, dropping his hand suddenly. “I haven’t got all day. What say we put this to a vote? I mean,” he added, leaning over my wife, “I assume I can count on you to do the right thing, and show me that you understand the course material.”

She nodded slowly, staring up at him. I guess she really wants to pass his course.

The professor raised his hand – the one with the sack. “Then I vote: let’s go shopping!” he grinned. “I need some stuff!”

My wife tightened her lips. “It’s the right thing to do,” she said, raising her hand and averting her eyes.

In a blink she disappeared into the sack. I was about to cry out in opposition to this violation of sense, property, morality and rationality, but of course I am in the minority, so what’s the point?

Strong Atheism: The Case for Evacuating the Middle Ground

In the world of philosophy, those who make the active claim that God does not exist are often viewed as extremists. Taking a positive stand about the nonexistence of God is considered akin to claiming that all forms of matter, energy and consciousness have already been discovered, and that there is nothing new to be learned from the universe. The simple fact that scientific truths are constantly being overturned is considered reasonable justification for a form of scientific agnosticism, which is generally expanded to include the vague possibility of the existence of a supernatural being such as gods. Since we do not know everything about the universe, agnostics claim, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that gods might exist. Thus “strong atheism” – the positive declaration of the nonexistence of gods – is generally viewed as an irrational position, ironically on par with the theist’s assertion that gods do exist.

Thus, like most positions in the post-Hegelian world, the truth is considered to lie somewhere in the midpoint between two extremes. Wildly asserting that gods exists is as irrational as blindly asserting that they do not. The most sensible position is to withhold judgment.

Those with any decent knowledge of philosophy know that the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who assert that gods exist, and that no action is required from atheists to disprove the existence of gods. However, the inevitable failures of all attempts to prove the existence of gods never seems to move the theist position into the “not true” category – merely into the “not proven but possible” category. In this essay, I will endeavor to give it just a little push over the line.

Like most problems in philosophy, the conflict stems from imprecisions in definition. “God” is a notoriously fluid concept, able to slosh fashionably into almost any mental container. God can be defined as a “higher power,” or “love,” or “energy,” or “nature,” or “an old man on a cloud,” or “the energy that binds the universe together” or “the first cause” or “hope” etc. etc. etc. Naturally, no philosophical discussions can retain any coherence in the face of such wildly amorphous – and often contradictory – definitions.

Similarly, the definition of “existence” is often confused. Does “existence” mean “any form of matter, energy or consciousness that could conceivably exist in this or any other universe,” or does it mean “a Christian deity whose son came back from the dead”? Does it mean “that which is composed of matter or energy,” or “that which I believe with all my heart to exist”?

Of course, if “gods” and “existence” is defined in a tautological manner, no advance in knowledge is achieved. If “gods” are defined as spiritual beings discoverable through faith, and “existence” is defined to include that which is discoverable through faith, nothing is gained. “Existence” must be an objective state, and “knowledge” must be an objective methodology.

Now, for science, “existence” is a relatively simple concept – it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. This is quite different from “accuracy,” which is the correlation between concepts and the behavior of matter and energy in the real world. A concept has accuracy – or validity – if it precisely predicts or describes the behavior of matter and energy in the real world. This, of course, is the basis of the scientific method, which is that all human concepts must bow to the empiricism of physical evidence. Or, to put it another way, in any conflict between consciousness and matter, consciousness must give way, since consciousness can contain errors, but matter cannot.

With this (admittedly brief) introduction in place, we are a good deal closer to understanding the conflict between strong and weak atheists. The central question about the existence of gods – no matter how defined – is this: are gods subject to physical laws?

If gods are subject to physical laws, then the first law that gods are subject to is this: since existence is defined as that which is composed of either matter or energy, if gods exist, they must be composed of either matter or energy.

The opposite corollary must also be true. If gods are not composed of matter or energy, then gods by definition do not exist. Since “existence” is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, “non-existence” must be that which possesses neither matter nor energy. Thus to argue that gods exist despite a total absence of matter or energy is to argue that existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction. If I define an “orange” as a round citrus fruit that is orange in color, I cannot include in that definition an invisible orange that is the opposite of round, the opposite of citrus, the opposite of fruit, and the opposite of orange. (I mean, I suppose could, but who would believe that I was serious – or even sane?)

If gods are subject to physical laws, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that gods exist. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence – we cannot perceive black holes directly, but we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as captured matter crosses the event horizon. But since “existence” is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the scientific proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy. “Evidence” is basically defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner – either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. Since our physical senses are organs designed to transmit the effects of matter and energy, it is essentially through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things. If I argue that something exists, but that there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. Let’s say I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep loud sound coming from a speaker. If he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. If this instrument detects no sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? At some point, if my definition of “loud sound” basically boils down to “that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring” then clearly my approach to truth needs a little work!

This approach helps clarify the truth-value of the proposition that gods do not exist. If gods are subject to physical laws, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of gods. If gods are not subject to physical laws, then gods do not exist by definition, since that which is not subject to physical laws – i.e. is not composed of matter or energy – does not exist.

If gods are subject to physical laws, important ramifications follow. Since gods must be bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, since miracles are by definition violations of physical laws. Similarly, gods cannot be omniscient and all-powerful, since both attributes would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. Omniscience would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter, past, present and future, which is clearly impossible, while omnipotence would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of nonexistence.

If gods are subject to physical laws, then religion makes no sense whatsoever, and praying to gods makes about as much sense as worshiping a black hole, begging the Sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your son to appease the speed of light. If gods are not subject to physical laws, then the concept of “gods” is synonymous with the concept of non-existence, which makes religion even more deranged. Then, rather than praying to the moon, you would be in fact praying to the empty space between the Earth and the moon.

Why is there such opposition to the proposition that gods do not exist? Many people I have talked to with regards to strong atheism feel extremely uncomfortable asserting that gods do not exist. Or, to be more precise, they feel extremely uncomfortable telling Christians, say, that the Christian god does not exist. Rather than confront faithful believers with the hollow falsehood of their imaginary worship, they redefine “God” within their own minds as “a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet,” or “that which could exist in an alternate universe,” or something to that effect. This allows them to continue breaking bread – or least avoiding open conflict – with those addicted to superstitious nonsense. However, it could be argued that this is a fairly cowardly position. Either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any form of religious deities. If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the steadfast belief that shoes can fly and sing songs are all equally valid.

If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot logically be applied according to whim, the expediency of the moment, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. If you wish to take a stand for rationality and truth, then I for one completely applaud you – and sympathize with the attendant social difficulties that often result. If, however, you take a stand for rationality and truth, but then sit back down whenever anybody gets upset, there’s very little point getting up to begin with.

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.