Subject: To Be Free, Or Not To Be Free -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Note: The following rant was prompted by a private exchange I had with someone about the idea that someone can be pro-freedom AND for forced morality.) Dear Subscriber, Imagine how much I could help you if I had the RIGHT to forcibly control you. If my respect for your self-ownership and your individual rights weren't in the way, just think of how much better I could make your life through the use of violence and the threat of violence. Here are just a few things I could do: 1) FINANCES I would force you to work harder, work longer hours, etc. This would result in more promotions, and you earning more money. I would also eliminate any of your expenditures which I deemed to be unnecessary (which would be a lot), and force you to save a lot more, and invest wisely. No more cable, no drinking, no smoking, no fancy cars, etc. I could both increase your income and drastically reduce your expenditures. 2) HEALTH I would force you to get enough exercise every day, at gunpoint if necessary. I would also force you to adopt a healthier lifestyle-- more fruits and vegetables, no sweets, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs. I would do your grocery shopping for you, and put you on a strict regimen to best serve your health. 3) MORALITY I would force you to refrain from activities I deem harmful or immoral. No extramarital or "deviant" sex, no smoking, no use of any mind-altering substances (including alcohol), no gambling, no swearing, only G and PG movies, etc. I would also force you to give to the charities I deem most worthy. I would coerce you into being a good spouse, parent, and/or child (whichever applies), and being polite and charitable to everyone. - --------------------------------- Wouldn't that be swell? It is unquestionable that, if I had the unlimited ability and right to forcibly control all your choices and actions, that there would be dramatic improvements in your financial and physical well-being. (The same would be true if someone could impose the same things on me.) There's only one small problem: using violence, or the threat of violence, to impose such choices on you, even if it would BENEFIT you, is absolutely immoral. Why? Because you own you, and I don't own you. It's not a very complicated concept. You own you, and so I have no right to use force to make your choices for you. (The only time I DO have the right to use force against you is to STOP you from forcibly interfering with someone ELSE'S right to own himself and make his own choices.) The principle is pretty darn simple, don't you think? Trouble is, 99.9% of the the population (at least) does NOT believe in that principle. If, for example, you support the "war on drugs"--the use of state VIOLENCE to control what people choose to put in their own bodies--then you obviously have no respect for the self-ownership of every individual. The same is true if you want prostitution "outlawed" (forcibly prohibited). The same is true if you believe in ANY kind of "taxes," to fund ANYTHING, including those things listed in the Constitution. In short, your choice is simple: be an anarchist, or abandon the idea that every individual owns himself. And if you abandon the very simple principle of self-ownership, on what basis can you possibly complain about the totalitarian agenda suggested above? If, for example, it's justifiable for "government" to tell people they can't smoke a certain leaf, why, in principle, would it NOT be justifiable for "government" to make people eat a healthy diet? If it's okay to use coercion to FORCE people to fund a military (for their own good, of course), why, in principle, would there be anything wrong with FORCING them to spend carefully, invest wisely, or exercise regularly? In short, you can't have it both ways. If you advocate that "government" force your neighbors to do, or to not do, ANYTHING (except in defense of someone else's freedom), then you have accepted the premise that individuals do NOT have the right to make such choices for themselves; in which case, what right do you have to complain about totalitarianism? If you want your neighbor "taxed" to fund a police force, or a military, or a welfare state, or a school, or a retirement system, or anything else, then how can you on principle oppose the "government" robbing YOU to pay for things that you don't want to support? There's a reason "government" always grows, and oppression always increases, until something really unpleasant (e.g., revolution or economic collapse) "reboots" society. It's because once you accept "government" AT ALL, you have accepted the notion that politicians have the RIGHT to impose their choices on us by FORCE, and you therefore have abandoned the notion that each of us owns HIMSELF. Once the principle is gone, what is there to prevent eventual complete tyranny? Not a darn thing. How many more times does history have to prove that, before people get the PRINCIPLE right, and stop bickering over irrelevant details about what flavor of slavery we should have? (And how long will those few who get the principle RIGHT be condemned as "extremists" by all the anti- freedom proponents?) Sincerely, Larken Rose http://www.larkenrose.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkd8FpYACgkQGmVFo/iGj32AVgP+Pi3cHn+kIxJMl4nnHZWqt3qeGlTs 8lYMnmZV76OvopuU2PQljWpSh/fGngayjDmI2gUmJxxX51LUXmi2Yj9hOB8qsDRz+0FC s8xGpNS1QGW+vMcdxQjJvbvubLBurwk2h5Wyiu7QijftfdHj2j0FC2S3I/7AANb+EZUa n3Ypc2g= =FRGi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to tmds-on@mail-list.com