I claim that values are particular kinds of facts, that values relate to a specific person and for a particular reason. That is not to say that the process of evaluating which actions an individual ought to pursue is left to personal discretion, only that there are circumstances (or context) by which objective evaluations are made. For example, eating an apple provides a value (the satisfaction of my hunger) under certain circumstances. (Those certain circumstances, just to name a few, are whether I own or have permission to eat the apple, if the apple is sanitary and if the apple is ripe or not.) Since the decision to remain alive or to die is the only fundamental alternative I face, choosing to live establishes that my life is an ultimate value, an end in itself. My very own life, should I choose to remain living, is the only logically consistent standard of value I can have. I can discover these certain circumstances because they have empirically observable consequences on the standard by which I evaluate values. And it is that ultimate standard of value that can be used as a yardstick to evaluate the choice of alternatives within a given context, like eating the apple. That which promotes my life is a value, and that which hinders my life is a disvalue. Since this is true of all individuals, each individual’s life is an end in itself. For intrinsicists, values are not related to any particular purpose or any purpose at all since values just exist on their own. If someone were to ask an intrinsicist why eating an apple is a value, assuming the intrinsicist did believe eating an apple were a value in and of itself, the intrinsicist would say that eating an apple is the right thing to do. And why is it the right thing to do? Because eating an apple is a value. That is circular logic.

According to intrinsicism, a value resides in an object, thus shaping what that object is. So instead of saying that the nature of reality (what is) determines what are values, religions like Christianity are claiming that values determine the nature of reality (what is). A value would reside in the aforementioned apple, and it would be the right thing to do to eat more apples than less, regardless of the circumstances. One might object that stealing apples might not be appropriate since stealing is prohibited in the Bible, which is true. However, intrinsicism does not provide a way to formulate a moral code (or hierarchy of values) to evaluate possibly conflicting actions in light of particular circumstances. Since intrinsicism contends that values exist independent of their relationship to a particular valuer for a particular reason, intrinsicism cannot account for why an apple would be a greater value when a person is hungry rather than not, for example. Without a cognitive standard to make comparisons, a person would be left to decide which value is greater based on his or her desires (because one’s desires (or lack of) would be all that values shared in common). In practice, intrinsicists have to guess or take other people’s word for it. That is one reason why intrinsicism is a more elaborate form of subjectivism.

My experience is that theists will appeal to so-called innate moral knowledge as proof of objective morality. Yet, this so-called innate moral knowledge is often mistaken, according to theists, when confronted with the problem of evil. Suffering brought about by natural disasters or genocide would all be preventable by a god, yet those tragedies are permitted and orchestrated to take place by god. Because there is no empirical verification of innate knowledge, the argument is that god must have some reason unbenounced to humans for this destruction of innocent life to take place, which tells us that any innate moral knowledge is untrustworthy. The three possible conclusions (all of which theists deny is true) are that objective morality exists independent of a god, objective morality does not exist, or god is not naturally good.

Moreover, Christians are mistaken when they claim they believe that god is an ultimate value and that therefore god is the ultimate standard of value. For Christians, the ultimate value and the standard of value is the grace (or approval) of god. A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. Christians are seeking to gain or keep the grace of god so that they are accepted into the kingdom of god. Logically speaking, through, the grace of god cannot be an ultimate value because the grace of god is contingent on god’s decision to grant grace in the first place. God’s decision to grant grace could only take place if granting grace or not granting grace would somehow affect god, a purportedly all-powerful, all-knowing eternal being. An individual’s decision to accept and pursue god’s grace has no bearing on god, who is incapable of destruction and who is not susceptible to time constraints. Nothing can affect god, who cannot be changed in any respect. God would have nothing to gain and nothing to lose, so nothing can be of value to god. If nothing can be of value, there is no reason for god to act, let alone grant grace.

For the intrinsicist, these values — since they serve no actual purpose — are actually just duties. Why is it that god’s grace is something worth pursuing, one might ask? Because it is the right thing to do. Why is that? Because god’s grace is a value one ought to pursue. That is question-begging, and the illogic of that should be apparent before I can say “infinite regress.”

Frustrated, reasonable people might ask why should they accept that god’s grace is the standard of value. The answer is pretty straightforward: because you can either live in bliss with god or be tortured for eternity. The next question then becomes why should I consider living in bliss with god a good thing and being tortured a bad thing. Christians have one of two choices, as far as I can see. They can either return to the infinite regress of intrinsicism, or the intrinsicist can say that living in bliss with god feels pleasurable and being tortured feels painful. That does not really answer any questions either. Why should pleasure be considered good and pain considered bad? After all, pleasures can sometimes be harmful. For kids, only eating sweets might be pleasurable, but always eating sweets is not a good thing. Exercise phrases like “No pain, no gain” are expressing that one’s own life is the standard of value. Exercising can help an athlete become stronger, faster or build endurance. That is important because the achievement of those values helps one become a better basketball player or win more games, which would further boost self-esteem, a component of happiness. Genuine happiness is a consequence of achieving life-promoting empirical (fact-based) values and is a rationally consistent purpose of living one’s life.

A final argument given by intrinsicists is that their god is the lawmaker and that fact establishes the authority of god’s law. In fact, intrinsicists argue, god is responsible for every fact in the universe. Not only would god be responsible for the creation of existence, god is responsible for the identity (or nature) of all that exists. So things, including values and consequently morality, are what god chooses them to be. This would be the most overt and grandiose appeal to subjectivism imaginable and really underscores the subjective nature of a belief in god. If the subject of consciousness (god) has primacy over the subjects of consciousness (entities in existence) then nothing can be objective. If even a single consciousness has primacy over existence, then the law of identity, the basis for metaphysical objectivity, is meaningless.

Religious values are not based on facts, but on feelings. All the way around it, people accept religious teachings on faith. They accept on faith that god’s grace is the ultimate value because they feel like it. If the subjectivist teachings of religion were isolated to just theists, that would still be tragic. Unfortunately, it is much worse, and it is rooted in the truly evil idea that someone or something else is the beneficiary of another’s life. If the beneficiary of my life is god or god’s grace, I have no sanction to live my life for my benefit. Obviously, that is going to create some conflict. With all the religions in the world, not everyone is going to agree — particularly since god’s grace is not observable — what honors god’s grace and what dishonors god’s grace.

Since most everyone (including most atheists) agrees that I have no right to live my life according to my own judgement, then it is perfectly acceptable to apply coercion so that I might live my life by someone else’s judgement. The only things subjectivists have ever had in their favor are guilt and the gun. That is moral cannibalism.

• Committing Genocide — In the first book of the Bible, God decides Man is so evil that almost all living things must be killed in a worldwide flood, including children and animals. There is little discussion of why such a step is taken, and no convincing explanation is offered. Also left unanswered is why it was necessary to kill so many animals, which could have provided some value to the poverty stricken people of that time. It is inconceivable that it could be. Unfortunately, this would not be the last time God was responsible for the premeditated murder of children.

  In Egypt, the Israelites were being held as tax slaves to the state. Following a series of plagues that God commanded in an effort to besiege the pharaohs into freeing the Israelites, God concluded by killing the firstborn child of Egyptian families. By comparison, the American government’s economic sanctions and illegal invasion of Iraq, which together have resulted in more than a million deaths, seem tame.

• Condoning Chattel Slavery — I have never heard of a respected living conscious being that has ever condoned slavery, save for God. Surely, he must have seen the shift in public opinion coming.

  Throughout the Bible, though, slave owners are told how to conduct themselves but not that slavery is evil, that the pretense of the ownership of another person is evil. Sickeningly, slaves are even told to obey their masters.

• Enforcing Inherited Guilt — A central tenent of Christianity is that everyone is evil as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve from God’s grace in the Garden of Eden. The early parts of the Bible display cases of people being punished for the sins of the father. Really, what sense does that make?

  Morality is a matter of choice. To say that human beings are inherently evil (or good) would mean that they are not responsible for their decisions. It would be like a doorman forcing me into a casino to play craps only to find out during my roll that I have no choice but to play with the trick dice provided by the casino. I then have to pledge my unquestioned support and offer remuneration to pay off the inevitable debt I have incurred. The whole idea is mad and undermines a proper conception of morality.

• Punishing Victimless Crimes — For not supporting god, according the the Bible, I can expect eternal punishment. The belief as to what exactly such a punishment consists of spans across a wide spectrum. Some believe this punishment will consist of unspeakable torture, while others say an unbeliever remains in an oblivious unconscious rest.

  A central tenant of a civilized legal theory is that a crime has only occurred when a non-consenting individual has sustained an articulable injury to one’s person or property. Refusing my allegiance to the Bibilical god can in no way be an injury to a living person, much less to an immaterial entity. For example, even if I refused to acknowledge that Michael Jordon existed or if I believed that he was a terrible basketball player, I am not causing an injury to his body or property. A further difference is that Michael Jordon exists in material reality, while believers in the concept of god concede that god exists only in an immaterial supernatural realm that I presently am not able to experience.

  Since I can pose no possible injury to a god, I have a pretty strong case of being a victim of extortion since this almighty god has purposefully made such an ambiguous threat of eternal torture against me.

These are just some of the more egregious moral failures of the Biblical god. Even for those who believe the concept of god is valid, the tyrannical god described in the Bible could very well be a test of a believer’s moral code. So even if we played Pascal’s wager, there is at least as much reason to not lend your support for such a vile creature.

The constitution, which is supposed to be a check on government power particularly during times of emergency, has predictably been ignored. That is no surprise since the federal government has the final authority to interpret and enforce the construction on itself.

However fantastical, I would like to see some steps taken in the interim of achieving complete liberty.

Step 1. Withdraw all monetary and military support from the Arabian peninsula, fracturing the anti-American coalition and deflecting animosities to others in the Muslim world

Step 2. Do not torture suspected terrorists, which only serves to heighten grievances

Step 3. Uphold the Bill of Rights by holding trials for suspected terrorists and treat them as the common criminals they are

By far, my favorite speech of hers was at the Bedford city council meeting last year in which she spoke against the city’s daytime curfew ordinance.

McMillan offers a $377 online seminar on the concept of liberty centered around Biblical teachings, which consists of a handful of streaming videos and pre-recorded phone calls. Last month’s presentation was her second I had attended. The first came last year at an Educators of Liberty event in Fort Worth after the April 15 tax day rallies. Both presentations were about the same. The audience received a card with the trees of liberty and tyranny printed on one side and her definition of liberty on the other.

McMillan’s definition of liberty is “the opportunity to make a choice to assume responsibility and accept the consequences.” There are number of things that I like about her definition.

First, by using “opportunity,” she is seemingly implying that liberty does not guarantee success, only the pursuit of success.

Second, choices are a good thing. Choices are maximized in a decentralized decision-making process, so she seems to acknowledge a move away from authoritarian tendencies.

Third, responsibility and consequences are part of the fabric of liberty that makes it so beneficial. Allowing people to experience the reward (or failure) of their labor gives an automatic feedback for future decisions. Liberty and responsibility go hand-in-hand as each requires the other to have any true meaning.

However, as appealing as these concepts are to liberty, they are just a few of the consequences of liberty, but not liberty itself. She is applying a package deal to the concept of liberty, as Ayn Rand would say.

Defining ‘Capacity’

I think what McMillan is defining in the notion of capacity. The operative words in her definition are “the opportunity to make a choice.” For example, Merriam-Webster defines “capacity” as “the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.”

Let’s look at it. Under one scenario, say that a flower nursery only sold yellow flowers. That would certainly limit the opportunity for some customers who want red roses. If the flower shop was not open on Thursdays, they are limiting the liberty of customers and employees, according to McMillan’s definition. In fact, almost any act limits someone else’s “opportunity to make a choice to assume responsibility and accept the consequences.” If two parties make an exclusive contract, they have limited the opportunity for other to do business with them. In fact, every action I take comes at the exclusion of all other actions within that moment in time. Making any “choice to assume responsibility and accept the consequences” could conceivably be an act of tyranny because that choice could exclude others from making that same decision at that moment in time. So truly, liberty is tyranny, according to McMillan.

In addition, one could characterize charity as anti-liberty by this definition. Charity allows people to escape the full consequences of their actions and not assume responsibility.

Defining ‘Liberty’

So what is a clear, coherent definition of this solemn word? Dating back to John Locke’s ”Second Treatise on Civil Government,” philosophers have called liberty the existence of being removed from the violence of others. Locke said, “For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others.”

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) calls freedom “the absence of government coercion.” (Note: McMillan dislikes the connotation of the word “freedom,” but for this discussion I have used the words interchangeably.) Murray Rothbard said liberty is “the absence of coercion” in his book ”The Ethics of Liberty.” F.A. Hayek agreed with Rothbard, but the two disagreed on the meaning of coercion.

French pamphleteer Frederic Bastiat asked, “In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?”

I think it is important to use “coercion” rather than “violence” because there are many substitutues for violence that people can use, such as fraud and theft. I think of coercion as “an act by an individual against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to that which the human being has rightful control, such as his or her body or property.” This would very clearly include such decietful acts as fraud and theft.

I asked McMillan by e-mail about my interpretation of liberty. She said:

The problem with defining a word by what it does not include, rather than what it does include, is that in the end you still do not know what it is. You only know what it is not. Because we get more of what we talk about as well as more of what we focus upon, a definition that only includes the negative is flawed in premise and therefore is flawed in result.

But “the absence of coercion” is not defining liberty by what it is not. It is stating what condition must not be present for liberty to exist, namely coercion. Saying that “liberty is not coercion” would be defining liberty by what it is not. The definition of black in the color spectrum is the absence of any color. Only color has an existence of its own. A vacuum is the absence of matter. I accept that the same is true of liberty.

I think Bastiat would back me up on this. He said that justice is identified by a lack of injustice. “Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.”

McMillan appears pretty successful delivering her message and is a great orator and presenter. Ultimately, however, her message is flawed in such a way as to eschew the violence of the state, a territorially monopolistic and individually non-consensual political organization. It is great that people are talking about liberty — what it means and how they can act upon it in their lives. Yet, in an age when pro-war, pro-torture, pro-empire politicians (like Sarah Palin) call themselves pro-liberty, then it is worth examing what they mean so as to avoid being manipulated by false rhetoric.

George Donnelly makes two contributions today. The first is his rebutal to the grieved Joseph Stack, who published a suicide note online before flying a single-engine plane into an Austin building housing the offices of the Internal Revenue Service on Feb. 18. Stack had claimed he was left no other option, stating that “violence not only is the answer, (sic) it is the only answer.” Donnelly wrote:

Am I powerless? My vote doesn’t count. My voice is not heard in the corridors of power in Washington. My bank account is too small to fund political change. My salary is siphoned off into FICA taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, mortgage payments, credit card payments and inflated grocery bills before I see a dime. At any time I could be assaulted by the cops, fined by meter maids, tasered by the state police, murdered by the ATF, seized by the FBI or left penniless by the IRS. I am a punching bag standing patiently in line for my turn in the wringer. …

When I’m frustrated I remember that none of it matters. It doesn’t matter that the wrong candidate won office. He doesn’t rule me! He only has as much power as I voluntarily grant him. I never agreed to be bound by the laws he passes. I live my own life with integrity and honor by following the natural law: I do not aggress against others and I keep my word. …

As I grow more happiness and independence in my own life, I will help others do the same. I’ll boycott the strategies, agencies, options and involuntary obligations that once led me into vulnerability. I’ll exhort others to do the same. Soon we will be free, happy, at peace and prosperous. I am powerful. I have many options. I can overcome. I can make a better life for myself. I can.

In another post, “We Must Live in Alignment with Our Principles,” Donnelly makes a point I’ve been reconciling in my own mind.

Liberty starts with each of us. If we can’t make the voluntary society happen in our own lives, what hope is there of making it happen on a large scale? Change requires that good people set good examples. If nothing else, your efforts will keep the promise of liberty alive until conditions become more favorable. It’s our best option. No one will make this happen but ourselves. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

~ Answering the ‘Yes, But the State is Inevitable’ Falsity

For context, Benjamin Tucker defined government as “the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will.” BK Marcus answered whether government was inevitable.

And for me, the question “Isn’t some form of State inevitable?” is like saying We will never get rid of rape and robbery, murder and torture, so what sense does it make to take a principled stance against these things? They will always be with us.

It’s sad to me that such a basic thing as the principled opposition to coercion is considered to be extremist, unreasonable, unrealistic. Why do I have to believe in permanent peace to oppose war? How is it utopian to denounce force?

I share your confidence that force and fraud will always be with us, and I will always oppose them. But Statism is more than the prediction of “the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will.” Statism is the claim that institutionalized proactive coercion is justified. Anarchism rejects that conclusion” (emphasis in original).

~ The New Normal for Government Services

Wendy McElroy has a post from TechDirt about the new ways that government is servicing you. In California, the city of Tracy is going to charge residents $300 and non-residents $400 when the fire department is called to a medical emergency. I would completely support this but for the fact that residents already have to pay for the fire department with taxes. The reason the city is having to take such measures is to pay back the government-backed labor union that lobbies for excessive compensation and funded the city council member’s election campaigns. The city spends $9 million per year in a city of 80,000 on employee pensions and deposits ¢33 for every dollar the police and fire fighters make in wages.

No charge will be issued when the fire department responds to a car collission or a fire. So the solution is simple enough, according to McElroy: “In short, if you see someone have a heart attack in the street, you should quickly set a trash bin on fire.”

~ Think Small, Change the World

Libertarian persuasion guru Michael Cloud has some advice and motivation for activists.

Because the vital few, the great men and women, the key events were indispensable and necessary to what happened — but they were *not* sufficient to make it happen.

Without the vital, indispensable small actions of many forgotten individuals, the great events would have faltered, fizzled, and failed. …

Think small. Start small. Work small. For liberty. You can change the world.

~ Speaking of Changing Minds

Seth Godin has a post on the importance of extremists. He concludes:

It’s interesting to note that an enormous amount of apparently principled argument goes on about relatively tiny movements in where the line is being drawn. In most cases, to paraphrase an old joke, “we’ve already figured out what sort of girl you are, now we’re just arguing about the price.” It’s not the principle, in fact, it’s just the degree of compromise we’re comfortable with and content to argue over.

And so it’s left to the zealots. The people at either end have little hope of moving the masses all the way to their end of the argument. Instead, what they do is make it feel safer to change the boundaries, safer to recalibrate the compromise. Over time, as the edges feel more palatable, the masses are more likely to be willing to edge their way closer to one edge or another. Successful zealots don’t argue to win. They argue to move the goalposts and to make it appear sane to do so.

Two opinion polls are particularly enlightening. According to a CBS-New York Times poll, 81 percent of those polled did not want members of congress reelected. Just 15 percent approve of the job congress is doing. Yet unlike the market, government job performance is not indicative of job security. At least 90 percent of incumbents will get another term, if the historic figures play out.

In a Rasmussen poll, only 21 percent of respondents “believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.” The poll was further broken into the populist class and the political class. According to the site, the populist class, about 65 percent of the nation, trusts individuals to solve problem better than political leaders. The political class, about four percent of the nation, trusts politicians more than individuals.

Of the populist class, only 18 percent believe the government has the consent of the governed and most them view the government as a special interest group. Nearly two-thirds of the political class believe government has consent. That means a despicable 37 percent of the political class, approximately 1.77 million, trust politicians more yet do not believe those politicians have the consent to act.

~ (Parking) Anarchism in Action

Without having to use the power of the state, individuals find an ingenious solution to the parking problem in downtown Boston. It’s just another example of what F.A. Hayek called spontaneous order.

~ Tarrant County Judge Acted as Prosecutor

I don’t know how common this is around the country, but it is hard to image that the judge can be indifferent when he or she is responsible for acting on behalf of the government prosecutor.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article:

Robert K. “Bob” Gill disposed of nearly 8,000 such cases in 14 years as a state district judge before his retirement in 2007. No other judge in Tarrant County handled more….

An attorney who regularly represented indigent probationers facing revocation in Gill’s court has testified that the judge personally negotiated plea deals, a role normally reserved for prosecutors. Rejecting Gill’s offer often meant a tougher sentence if he later heard the case and decided a violation occurred, the attorney, William H. “Bill” Ray, said under oath.

Of course, it is no surprise that lawyers did not complain. They are repeat compulsory customers of Gill’s services.

jimposter made a comment on the site that summed up my feelings.

“This was not okay. The system is The State v. the defendant, not the state and the court v. the defendant. The judge’s role is to be unbiased and neutral and to hear evidence and make decisions based on it. His role is not to negotiate on behalf of the state. “How would you feel about the referee catching a pass and then ruling whether it was a completion or not?”

~ Grandview Council Rejects Stimulus Dollars

In some good news from the Star-Telegram, the Grandview city council rejected a $500,000 federal earmark to build a new water tower. In the council’s resolution, the members said “The city of Grandview does not believe such funding is ethical or constitutional.” Chet Edward (D-Waco) defended the pork spending, saying that earmarks represent just two percent of the federal budget. The city council may not be so sacrosanct either.

In 2007, the council requested the money for a new water tower but may not have wanted to spend the $225,000 in required matching funds for the project. The main objector to the earmark is also a supporter of the guy running against Edwards in the November general election.

~ Bob Barr Shouted Down for Opposing Torture

Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, was booed for saying that water boarding is torture. Don’t praise him so fast. He later said he supports “enhanced interrogations.”

This is the same point I made in a post earlier this month. Committed libertarians have not made any progress electorally because they are not willing to scratch enough backs, and if they were willing to scratch enough backs they wouldn’t be committed libertarians any longer. It is not simply a small-government versus a big-government mentality. It’s electoral libertarians or constitutionalists versus a multitude of warhawks, rent seekers, and stripes of big-government conservative and liberal social reformers who are more than willing to trade favors. Those are entrenched groups, and they find that big government suites their needs.

Before those groups came to power, Ludwig von Mises published “Human Action”, the most complete case for classical liberalism, and “Socialism”, which described the calculation problem of centralized economic planning. Leonard Read opened the Foundation of Economic Education, aiding the early careers of F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Henry Hazlitt. Ayn Rand championed the heroic nature of the individual. Their support for electoral politics was understandable given government’s popularity in the 1940s and 50s; but they failed to stop government growth when government was much less intrusive and when it was a tiny fraction of its current size. All the things that have happened since — the trillion dollar-per-year empire, the instillation of dictatorial client states in South America and the Middle East and the subsequent “blowback,” the hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians killed by American forces, and the authoritarian law enforcement tactic leveled against American civilians — happened despite their work. Those tragedies and many more happened anyways.

The fear is that liberty would be in full-scale retreat and that greater atrocities would have taken place had libertarians not participated in electoral politics. There’s a case to be made there, but it is speculation. What isn’t speculation is that government spending as a part of the economy is at an all-time high, and everyone expects it to stay on the current trajectory indefinitely. Most Americans still support pre-emptive war and torture for anyone the government labels a terrorist. In Michael Cloud’s book “Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion,” he cares to use the Weight Watchers Test to gauge the promises by politicians of reducing the size of government, referring to the famous diet plan in which participants meet regularly to weigh themselves in front of other members. He said:

The Weight Watchers Test of government lets us know where we are, which direction we’re moving … and how fast we’re going.

The Weight Watchers Test of government frees us from sleight-of-mouth and political illusions.

It offers us the facts, the truth:

Are we moving toward bigger and bigger Big Government … or getting closer and closer to individual liberty, personal responsibility, and small government?

According to the Weight Watchers Test, libertarians have failed and failed more miserably than anyone else I know. (I include myself in that criticism.) The government has grown from arguably the freest non-colonial government in all of history to the most dangerous existing threat to humanity (considering the military arsenal at a president’s disposal and their predecessor’s historical willingness to use it). A limited government has the perverse tendency of growing immensely since lifting many regulations and securing relative stability makes it possible to generate astounding amounts of wealth, allowing the government parasite to grow largely discretely until the point where the parasite of government becomes so entrenched that government and the market almost appear co-dependent and inseparable.

There are three possible reasons why I think libertarianism has lost political ground. First, we could be wrong, and libertarians fail to understand the scope and circumstances to which coercion should play in human interaction to promote prosperity. Philosophically, I think libertarians (those who support the maximum attainable role of individual liberty) are right. Human beings are the most prosperous, yet fragile, animals on earth. So I don’t think humans have progressed because of our extraordinary physical traits. It is because of the human mind and its reasoning ability. So it seems that the negation of the reasoning mind by initiating force is detrimental to the fruits of human progress. I appreciate Ayn Rand’s comment that “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.”

Second, libertarians may have failed due to a lack of effort. For this, I refer to the Ron Paul’s presidential campaign of 2008. In one day in November of 2007, his supporters raised over $4.3 million. A month later, supporters exhausted over $6 million in a single day, a record for the largest fundraiser in the history of politics. Libertarians are unlikely to ever find someone as honest and distinguished as Paul. He got more media attention than any ideological libertarian before, yet he rarely garnered more than 10 percent in Republican primaries despite the thousands of YouTube videos and millions of dollars invested. Even if Paul ran again, I’m doubtful that level of enthusiasm could be reproduced.

Third, maybe libertarians have tried the wrong strategy of clinging to government strictures to achieve intellectual inroads. Instead of trying to liberate the entire country, we could try to focus on something of which we have some control — ourselves and our personal relationships.

A belief in the maximum role of individual liberty is inherently an individualist philosophy. That means taking responsibility for our own liberty, just as we take responsibility for our own welfare — instead of giving that power to middlemen, the politicians. We can “be the change,” as Ghandi said, and lead by example to thwart the arbitrary controls others seek to impose on us. In that way, our ideals, cascading individual by individual, will eventually be reflected in the institution of government to the point where it is commonly accepted that government is no longer necessary. I don’t have to wait for the whole country to shift before I take responsibility for my own life and enjoy the benefits of living by honest, consistent principles. It can be achieved by taking peaceful direct action through education, outreach, and agorism.

What if Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Rand, and Hazlitt had worked outside the system 50 years ago? Imagine how much further liberty would have advanced. That too is speculation, but we’ve seen that electoral politics isn’t a path to salvation either.

The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.

Challenging the premise that one who opposes torture should not practice it, Tarrant County political activist and adviser Chris Howe responded.

How does this quote square with this advice?

That while the probability of a tender-hearted person getting the job of whipping master is low, that should the job be offered, the tender-hearted person should reject the job of whipping master? Instead they should gather around with other tender-hearted people and from a distance complain among themselves: “Oh that new whipping master, he shouldn’t be beating and shackling those men with inalienable rights. It would be far more economical to offer to pay those men a wage and let them come and go from the plantation as they saw fit. The plantation owner would then realize that they wouldn’t need a whipping master to ensure the work got done. Think of the savings”?

I completely understand the limitations on personal resources argument. There is only so much leisure time and only so much of that time to expend toward liberty causes. I know this well as I’ve stretched myself thin. But to leave the bounty of a field that you have sown to rot in the sun strains reason.

If there are other fertile fields available that your skills are better suited, certainly pursue those instead. Just make sure there is someone qualified to offer your arguments on that board. [Note: I made a few punctuation edits to each of Chris' original e-mail to conform to the style on this site. The board referenced in his last sentence is a committee a resident had the opportunity to serve on in a local city.]

I can certainly see Chris’ point about the desire to minimize the immediate harm inflicted. It should also not surprise us, especially Bastiat readers, especially when the means conflict with the ends, that short-term benefits may have unintended consequences. TANSTAFL! [Interestingly, the hypothetical has present-day implications as many libertarians view the current social construction as a form of enhanced slavery.]

I responded.

I think the quote is addressing the corrupting nature of power as much as anything. That is, for a person to become a master whipper, he or she must have taken several steps to be awarded that position, like practicing as an apprentice and proving him- or herself as an effective torturer. So that, even if that young apprentice was at one point a kind and gentle person, all that has been sapped from him or her by leading this contradictory life that on one hand sanctions violence and on the other feels mercy. In the pursuit of greater power, the master whipper most likely would have rationalized in favor of the slave master’s opinion that slavery is proper, and or necessary, to rule others by force.

In a sense, I agree that it would be silly and dumbfounding to just complain amongst ourselves about the violent nature of government. I believe that the most powerful forces in the world are ideas, but they must be expressed to have any effect. Yet those who find value in controlling others are more concerned about votes, money, and staying in power to care about such esoteric concepts.

What I would suggest is that rather than playing damage control, we should go on the offensive, presenting and practicing consistently the ideas of complete liberty, reason, and objective morality (and probably join the Free State Project) to demonstrate to others the practical benefits of our ideas by working together to thwart the arbitrary controls others seek over us.

From The Market for Liberty:

We can bring about a laissez-faire society, but only through the tremendous, invisible power of ideas. Ideas are the motive power of human progress, the force which shapes the world. Ideas are more powerful than armies, because it was ideas which caused the armies to be raised in the first place, and it is ideas which keep them fighting (if this weren’t true, political leaders wouldn’t have to bother with their tremendous propaganda machinery). When an idea gains popular support, all the guns in the world cannot kill it.

In addition, I feel reluctant to compel political independence upon others. If it reassures some to be ordered about and commanded on high, then that is their wish. A great source of antagonism people have with libertarians is they feel they are being “forced” into this mysterious new world without a safety net. Fortunately for them, I am certain that there will be no shortage of people willing to tell others what to do. That I am certain of. And the safety net of the state will not be necessary as we will live in greater peace and abundance.

Chris then responded.

You’re conflating.  The quote is referencing a whipping master, not a master whipper.  It’s a position, not a skill set.  He even mentions “get the job.” He’s referencing that it is an anomaly for an individual who does not like power to seek a position of power.

While the economics of that is true, it’s not the result of a moral people who are capable of governing themselves.

I feel it is a semantic difference. In any case, I think that these various forms of institutionalized oppression are the products of people’s misunderstanding of the necessary conditions for human flourishment. We can probably agree that statism is the most apparent form of oppression, but it is by no means the only one. Even if solid libertarians were to somehow capture control of the government apparatus and sabotage its controls, people would just transition their ideals of how society should function to another vehicle. Meanwhile, our efforts are diverted and principles abandoned (by making political payoffs) to maintain that hold on government. The state is only the current means. It is only the most convenient vehicle for delivering oppression because others grant its legitimacy on some fragile hinges called national security or free riders. Statism is the pretext, an excuse for controlling others.  So long as the notion prevails that one person’s benefit is another person’s loss that pretext will exist. I’m afraid that by confining this individualism philosophy to one aspect of human interaction, in politics, we have diminish the explosive impact of what a society or the bounds of human nature could achieve.

An approach I’ve been trying to develop in my own mind is something of an inside-out approach that focuses on personal development and self-improvement for ourselves and those around us. I think we can realize the benefits of these concepts (emotionally and materially) in a real concrete way. I also think this is more consistent with the principles of individualism because it focuses on changing individuals’ opinions primarily and institutions secondarily, if at all. A certain type of individual will flock to the message of liberty because our message is clear, consistent, and conforms to their own experiences and understandings. If you ask me how this will play out, I can’t say. I agree with Nathaniel Branden that now is the time to showcase the dignity of our volitional nature and exemplify the heroic nature of our accomplishments. I don’t think either is possible with a whip in your hand.

This discussion has been a benefit for myself, because I have been thinking of how to reconcile practicality and principles. Ayn Rand spoke to this better than I could. Those insights continue to bloom in my own mind. I guess I should stress that I don’t think participating in government, through electoral politics for example, is unprincipled. I’ll save what I think those standards to engage the government should be for another post. Also, I want to thank Chris, whom I consider as righteous and politically aware as anyone I know, for letting me share his comments on the site.

But how can that be? If the people that this government is guarding me against are inherently evil or crazy, such an argument would have no sway. What good is a government, let along a government that maintains its monopoly protection by force, going to do to cause irrational people to act rationally? Simple, it creates a police state. Waiting until someone acts is too late, the geographic area of protection is too large, and the means of acting can be too unidentifiable, especially with the existence of modern communication over the Web and by cell phone.

We are at heart so profoundly anarchistic that the only form of state we can imagine living in is Utopian; and so cynical that the only Utopia we can believe in is authoritarian. — Lionel Trilling

A totalitarian government that monitors and criminalizes thought really is the only solution. Of course, this government would be quite expensive to pay for the legions of regulators, police and jails. Individuals in this powerful government would hardly be accountable for any mistakes or mischievous acts. That really is the heart of it, isn’t it? In all likelihood, the very people it is claimed are necessary for protection from will head the government. Liberty-minded folks who respect other people’s decisions how to live their lives do not find value in regulating others and bossing them around. But for someone who does find value in that, whatever the pretext may be (to protect the environment, the children, you name it), of course they would seek out positions in the only organization with the legitimized power to govern others by force.

There’s even a term for it called regulatory capture — when the regulated become the regulators. Those busybodies will seek to expand their control by looking to precedent, reinterpreting past constitutional or legal restraints, and finally passing new laws if the other techniques haven’t worked.

For small government types, the utopian belief in violence via government to solve problems should be obvious if it hasn’t been already. This utopianism, an “impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform,” really hampers the intellectual progress necessary for actual reform. It would be like refusing to escape torturers after freeing yourself from their leg shackles. I say run free and open your stride.

For big government types, the utopian belief in violence via government rests further on the imaginary belief in the ability to change human nature. That will have to be tackled at another time.