Speech to Lake County Toastmasters: On Free Speech and Silence

     The following was written as my first speech to the chapter of Toastmasters International which meets in the town of Vernon Hills in Lake County, Illinois. The speech may or may not be delivered.

     Thank you very much. Let's keep the applause going for our General Evaluator, come on. Worked his way up, all the way from private first class evaluator, give him a hand. ....But all kidding aside, Mrs. Evaluator must be very proud.
   ...Am I bombing already? How's this work? What's going on here? Alright-

     Thanks for having me, everyone. And I say "everyone" rather than "ladies and gentlemen", for the sake of being as inclusive and welcoming to new members as possible. I hope that our speakers will address the group with gender-neutral pronouns from now on; these include "everybody", "one and all", "my friends", "all of you", and my personal favorite, "comrades".

     My name is Joe Kopsick, I grew up in Lake Bluff and now live in Waukegan. I found out about Toastmasters through a friend at the Lake County chapter of the Libertarian Party, which meets in Libertyville. I'm an avid writer; for the last ten years, I've managed a blog about politics, called the Aquarian Agrarian. And I'm a frequent candidate; I'm currently running for U.S. House for the fourth time.
     Since I need to communicate my ideas and my platform - and considering that I've had some difficulties with respecting word limits and time limits, trying to include too much information in speeches, and memorization - I thought I'd reach out to Toastmasters for some assistance becoming a better public speaker. In the spirit of the saying "Good speeches aren't written, they're re-written", I have edited this speech multiple times. And in consideration of Toastmasters's tip to speakers - to "keep it light", I've found a way to talk about America's problems, without talking about them.

     I don't expect to convert anyone here to libertarianism today, but I'm going to talk about one of our liberties that I think everyone in this room values: the freedom of speech (which includes the freedom of expression and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances). Without recognition of one another's freedom of speech, a group like Toastmasters could not exist. Toastmasters wants to help people communicate clearly and effectively; while those who wish to silence us want to stifle speech.
     Unfortunately, there are more people who want to stifle speech, than we think there are. Too many people say "Don't talk about politics or religion." Well, I guess that explains why so many Americans feel comfortable talking about everybody's race all the time! Is being a race-obsessed culture really better than openly discussing politics and religion?
     Ron Paul once said, "We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather; we have freedom of speech so we can talk about very controversial things." In the preface of Animal Farm, George Orwell wrote, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
     As someone running for office, I have to be able to talk about problems with the public, if we expect to solve those problems. Chinese general military strategist Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy". I want you to think of the problem as the enemy. Just like the enemy, we can't solve a problem if we can't understand it, and we can't understand it if we can't talk about it freely. It's only when we talk about problems freely, and maybe even think outside the box to approach a problem in a new way, that we are ever able to fix anything.

     Unfortunately, instead of trying to understand our problems by talking about them out in the open, we are attempting to solve our problems by ignoring them and pretending they don't exist. Instead of coming to us as listeners to field our complaints and grievances about society's ills, our politicians come to us to reassure us about how hard they're already working to solve those problems. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" has practically become the rule for how politicians talk to the public. They treat us like preschoolers who can't handle bad news.
     This culture of ignoring problems instead of solving them, has gotten so bad, that it's given us people who are so "politically correct" that they are against talking about problems because it's "negative", it brings "bad vibes", "it's better just to talk about more cheerful things", and "the problem is not the problem, it's in the way you perceive the problem." ...When you say the people criticizing the problem are the problem, you're blaming the victim and shooting the messenger.

     So why is this happening? Why are we so afraid to talk about "controversial" ideas that are outside the mainstream, even when they are potential solutions to our problems? It's because the line between what's "controversial", versus what's "offensive" or "upsetting" has been blurred.
     I could come out and say "I'm against slavery, and here's why", and someone will interrupt with "You're not allowed to talk about that, because the topic of slavery upsets me." Or I could say "I'd like to talk about how to prevent genocides", and someone could say "A genocide like the Holocaust could never happen again, and the thought that it could, bothers me." So then I'm not allowed to talk about why I oppose slavery or genocide, because it might "offend" some people. Ridiculous!
     And then, if I dare criticize the idea of time-and-a-half overtime pay, I'll get attacked for supporting slavery, because I want to cheat people out of money they worked hard for. Nevermind if my criticism of overtime is that it tempts and pressures people into working more than 40 hours a week for the extra money, meaning that they're overworked, and working when they're tired, and then tired at the end of the day when they drive home, putting other drivers in danger). Plus, for every person who works more than 40 hours a week, there's another person who can barely put together 30 hours a week.
     So who's the one who wants to stop genocide and slavery, and stop overworking people? The guy criticizing overtime and slavery, or the person shouting me down, saying I'm not allowed to talk about either of those things? There is a saying that goes "The person who says it can't be done, should not interrupt the person doing it." I think there ought to also be a saying: "The person who says it could never happen, should not interrupt the person who's warning that it has already begun."

     This prohibition on negativity in politics, has resulted in "confidence men" who reassure us that everything is fine, being the only people in power, and the only people with a national audience.
     They tell us that, as long as we believe that change will come through "trusting the process", we will solve America's problems. Essentially, we keep electing politicians who tell us that we can only solve our problems if we do exactly what we did to get into them in the first place (which is the definition of insanity), and then we wonder why our problems keep piling up and not getting solved.
     F.D.R.'s famous quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" may sound reassuring, but it really just means 'Trust your government to fix your problems; you should be more afraid of disagreement about how to approach the problem - and more afraid of dissent - than the problem itself." Roosevelt's promise of "freedom from fear" was the 1930s equivalent of "hope and change". We should call ignoring problems what it is; ignorance.
     This ignorance of political problems is the political equivalent of asking someone how they are, and then tuning them out when they start to talk about their problems, because it's "negative". And not listening to each other, and not caring about each other enough, are societal problems unto themselves as well. According to a recent Gallup poll, 3% of Americans said they consider "lack of respect" the most important issue facing the country. Civility in politics and politeness in public have gone away, and many people don't feel safe to express themselves or speak freely.
     If we want a society with fewer problems - and a society that admits that it has problems in the first place, then we have to respect other people's freedom of speech. And that goes whether they're talking about something "negative" or something "positive". The last time I checked, the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have a problem.

     We can't go on pretending that everything's fine, and that "unemployment is the lowest it's ever been, even since slavery, when we forced people to work"... Well if the unemployment rate is the most important thing in the world, then why don't we force everyone to work?
     The less free we are to question our government (and the statistics it gives us, like the unemployment figures), the more we will resort to stupid ways to move forward (like pressuring more people to get off unemployment and go back to work before they're ready). We cannot fix America's problems with cognitive dissonance, denial, and silence. Silence is for people who want to live sheltered lives full of running and hiding.
     We should not shrink from our responsibilities to make our society better, simply because changing things, and criticizing lawmakers who deserve to be criticized, will require us to deal with a little bit of "negativity". The rewards of solving the problems, will be well worth the negativity we will have gone through in order to solve them. This may all seem obvious, but common sense just isn't common anymore.

     Anti-slavery activist Wendell Phillips said "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Nobody ever said that a free society would be easy to maintain. In that way, freedom may be somewhat "dangerous", and the cost of preserving our freedom of speech may be high.
     But the cost of letting our problems pile up, without anyone being free to talk about new ways we could solve them, is higher. And no rational person should be willing to accept those costs.
     To solving problems, and to free speech.





     

Written on January 25th, February 19th, and February 24th, 2020

Published on February 24th, 2020
Edited on February 27th and March 7th, 2020

Why Libertarian Socialists Belong in the Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party

     Libertarianism and the left, far from being irreconciliable, are one and the same; libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron.

     Libertarian socialism hearkens back to the traditions of 19^th century European liberalism; back in the days of Joseph deJacque, the anarchist of the 1848 Paris Commune. Back when classical liberalism and calls for revolutionary socialism were all lumped together as part of “the left”, and back when classical liberal Frederic Bastiat and mutualist-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon served together on the left of the French National Assembly.

     Libertarian socialists aim for the dissolution of the state, as well as all hierarchical and exploitative economic structures which the enforcement of the state's power supports. Libertarian socialists support mutually beneficial voluntary exchange; and as free, direct, open, and egalitarian negotiation (on employment and contracts and other forms of decision-making), as possible. Libertarian socialists support the achievement of socialism through peaceful means, but also recognize that achieving justice against an intrinsically self-serving and violent government, often requires acting without the support of the law.

     Libertarian socialists believe in abolishing the state, organized and legalized violence, monopoly, and relationships of domination and hierarchy in the economy. These relationships of domination include landowner over land and nature, polluting business over community, landlords over tenants, bosses over employees, lenders over borrowers, and elected representative over voter. Libertarian socialists aim to create a society which is absolutely free, but also as equal as possible (without sacrificing liberty), just as voluntaryists and libertarians of the right do.

     Liberty from the state, and equality within that liberty, make libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists want to see people so absolutely free, that they are equal in that total liberty, and thus have equality of opportunity. Guaranteeing equality of outcome, however, would take the “libertarian” out of “libertarian socialism”, and that would be against our values; libertarian socialism is thus not inconsistent with the traditional entrepreneurial libertarian value of freedom of opportunity (and equality within that opportunity).

     That is what I and other libertarian socialists believe, and that is why we feel that there is a place for libertarian socialists within the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party. We are in the movement to help make sure that voters (and non-voting lovers of freedom) understand that libertarians do not want to fetishize, or over-prioritize, capitalism, private property, competition, markets, trade, or money. If the Libertarian Party regards its economic ideology as capitalist, rather than supporting free markets, it is making a choice for potential voters, which they should and must have the right to make for themselves when we have a free society. That choice is the choice of which economic system (or systems) one will live under.

     A stateless society will feature a multitude of economic systems, because the structures which keep the current system enforced, cannot continue to be supported without resorting to legalized violence (i.e., state action). That's why, when the state is gone, we will see not only free markets in defense and security (because the power to make large-scale military contracts with legally stolen taxpayer money will be gone), we will also have a free market in economic systems. We will also have a free market in "self-governance", i.e., freedom of choice over who resolves our disputes. and ensures that we abide by voluntary contracts.

     That is why I and other libertarian socialists believe that the Libertarian Party should not designate an economic system. I would prefer that the L.P. cease supporting “capitalism” in name, and instead declare that we support free markets. Alternatives which I would accept, include: 1) a declaration that we are neutral on economic issues not having to do with the state; 2) a declaration that we are open to all so-called “heterodox” (or non-traditional) schools of economics; or 3) a declaration that we support either classical liberalism, laissez-faire economics, or entrepreneurialism.
     Whatever we choose, it must be abundantly clear that we do not oppose cooperative enterprise. Anyone who believes that a private, for-profit business can be self-governing, should be able to admit that a cooperative enterprise can be self-governing too. And when all enterprises become self-governing - and are directed by a free, open, and direct as possible negotiation between their workers and clients/customers - external government of economic affairs will no longer be necessary.

     Only when we are free to improve land and keep whatever we build and grow on it, will we all be fully free to enjoy the benefits of liberty and property. We cannot simply resolve to support “property rights”, by supporting the existing set of property claims (many of which are unfounded, undeserved, and supported by the violent enforcement of outdated government laws). The libertarian socialists are in the movement because libertarians should want everyone to have property, and own businesses (if that's what they want in life), if the movement is to be taken seriously as having realistic solutions to poverty.

     If the federal government did not own or manage any land outside of the District of Columbia, then the third of Western American lands which it owns and manages, would fall to the states and/or private owners. If assurances can be made that vulnerable lands won't be exploited, then the amount of area suitable for development will increase. With more land available, the price of land will decrease. And since all labor and capital which you can mix together, has to be mixed together on land, with the price of land low, the costs of developing that land, including by hiring people to work on it, will also decrease.
     This is how abolishing the state, and undeserved claims over wide swaths of land, will eventually lead to low prices on everything, and potentially even zero cost for land. The same effects, in terms of price decreases, will also be felt when and if our market systems are used as they were intended; our markets need an injection of price competition and the clearing of markets, so that prices can naturally fall, without governmental economic intervention being necessary to achieve those price decreases.

     The last hundred and fifty years of discourse in political economy has been consumed with petty squabbles between the representatives of the interests of labor and capital. But neither capital nor labor will be free - nor will they be able to deal with one another on fair or free terms - until the land beneath them is respected. An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere; none of us will be free as long as the majority of the people with whom we are interacting, are unfree. Each of us ought to be free to join any union (and as many unions) as we please (on a voluntary basis). Also, we must each be free to become independent contractors, which maximizes our power to negotiate in a direct manner.

     The more people who are independent contractors, and the more people who own their own home - and the less restrictive zoning laws we have – the more people there are who can work at home. When people can work without leaving home, they can protect their own house and family (instead of somebody else's), and teach the next generation how to inherit their skills. And the more people who work at home and own their own home, the more people can build and grow whatever they want on their own property, and keep all the products of it (without paying taxes or rent). And the more people can depend on themselves, the less likely it will be that they will have to resort to leaving their own property, selling their labor, selling their products, participating in markets, or trading, or using money or currency, or participating in economic activity at all. Post-scarcity economics is possible now, because we have abundance, and most if not all economic activities could easily be made unnecessary.

     Only once we can build and grow what we please on our own property, and once competition is fully optional, will competition be fully free. A free market, in a stateless society, will feature total freedom to compete, as well as to cooperate, and cooperatively own. Total freedom to compete, includes the right to compete against the established predator multinationals which exist today, and which thrive off of taxpayer-funded subsidies, favors, grants of monopoly status (such as patents), and other privileges and protections (such as contractual and legal protections from economic competition and responsibility for their crimes and frauds).
     Corrupt, monopolistic, and rent-seeking firms will likely never be held responsible through the law, and so they must be held responsible through the market; through both competition by all producers against monopolies, and cooperation with other producers with the intent of driving the corrupt monopolists out of business.

     When large numbers of families do not own the homes they live in, and can have their shelter or warmth taken away through a landlord's selfishness or negligence – or through a boss's corruption - humanity is threatened, and the system is condoning child abuse. We must never allow ourselves to become dependent upon anyone whom we would not trust to take care of our families as we would. And that is why nobody who works should be dependent upon a boss (or a machine he doesn't at least partially own, or land in which he doesn't have stake and interest) for survival.

     And once it is no longer necessary for anyone to rent or borrow means of production (i.e., farms, factories, workplaces, and large difficult to move machines), then all economic rents (including rent, interest, profit, and usury) will disappear. We can have a stateless economy which is “privatized” in its statelessness, but that does not have to mean that the economy must be oriented towards extracting as much surplus profit as possible. Expecting each person to be independent, can only work with enough voluntary association and coordination, to make sure that the purchasing power of the poor and needy are maximized, so that the poor can afford what they need to live.

     We can and must achieve a free market system that is so radically and totally free, that the potential of the poor to build and grow and receive what they need, is not predicated on their ability to beg for scraps while their work is deliberately undervalued so as to keep them in dependence forever. A vision of society which allows that is unfree, and thus cannot rightfully be described as featuring a free market or a free economy.

Written on November 6th and 7th, 2019

Published on November 7th, 2019

Sixty-Three Questions That Every Thinking Libertarian Should Be Able to Answer

Table of Contents

1. Foundational Questions
2. Questions About Self-Ownership and Property
3. Questions Related to Borders, Nationalism, and Defense
4. Questions About Taxes and Economic Issues
5. Questions About Partisan Politics and Authoritarian Ideologies
6. Questions About Social, Domestic, and Moral Issues

Content

1. Foundational Questions

Question #1. Would you describe your libertarian strain of thought as capitalist? Why or why not? Should libertarianism be associated with any particular economic system; for example, free markets, capitalism, or perhaps something else?

Question #2. How would your libertarian ideology deal with the need to preserve the rights of majorities and minorities alike? Is libertarian individualism compatible with democracy, multiculturalism, and collectivism, or not?

Question #3. Is socialism compatible with a free-market libertarian society? Can socialism be voluntary, and if so, how, or under what conditions?

Question #4. Is the Non-Aggression Principle (N.A.P.) sound? Libertarians tend to be against banning most things; is it enough to ban aggression, or is it necessary to ban things like domination, hierarchy, and exploitation as well?



2. Questions About Self-Ownership and Property

Question #5. Would it be accurate to say that “an individual human being owns oneself”? Would it be accurate to say that “an individual human being owns oneself as property?” Is it important to make such a distinction, and why or why not?

Question #6. Does the right to own property derive from the right to own yourself? If not, then where does the right to own property come from?

Question #7. How would you define private property? Is “private property” distinct from “personal possessions”, or not?

Question #8. Can private property be claimed without the assistance of some state or government? If so, then how? 

Question #9. What is your view on “landmine homesteading”, the process by which a person claims a plot of land by planting landmines around its perimeter? Is willingness to defend a property all it takes to justify claiming it as your own?

Question #10. What actions are necessary in order to justify owning property privately? Is the Lockean Proviso sound, or do you support Occupancy and Use Norms, or some other arrangement?

Question #11. Would it be desirable for private property to exist, even if it can exist without government? (Specifically, with respect to land, and the ownership of workplaces)

Question #12. Is "privatize everything" a helpful or hurtful slogan, in your opinion? Is there any resource which you feel should not be privatized (and if so what are they)?

Question #13. Should workers expect to be compensated with 100% of the value of the effort they contributed?

Question #14. Is work voluntary? And can employment for the benefit of another person be voluntary?

Question #15. Are hierarchy and exploitation inherently wrong, or inherently coercive in a way that violates the Non-Aggression Principle?

Question #16. What is your libertarian ideology's stance on labor unions and cooperative enterprises?

Question #17. Is rent voluntary, or is rent theft? Do all forms of renting violate the N.A.P., or do only economic rents violate the N.A.P. (or neither)?

Question #18. If you own a business, should you be in any sense obligated to serve whomever comes in? Why or why not? Would it be desirable to require businesses to serve all potential customers, if the state didn't exist, and why or why not?

Question #19. Can intellectual property be protected without government? Should it be protected? If so, how?



3. Questions Related to Borders, Nationalism, and Defense

Question #20. Are borders desirable? If so, does the right to have borders derive from our right to own private property, and if so, how?

Question #21. Would borders exist without government, and should they?

Question #22. Can nationalism exist without the state, and should it? Can fascism exist without the state?

Question #23. Is law enforcement good, natural, and necessary? Are the police necessary? Can you think of any circumstances under which ordinary civilians ought to have the right to arrest others?

Question #24. Should jails and prisons exist? Would they exist without the state, and if so, how would your strain of libertarianism propose to address the risk that applying the profit incentive to the issue of detention of criminal suspects and convicts, could result in increased arrests in order to justify building and filling more for-profit prisons?

Question #25. Can militaries exist without a government, and should they exist in a stateless society?

Question #26. Without the state, would people voluntarily band together to defend themselves, or would some form of “voluntary social contract” be necessary to ensure equal contribution to defense efforts?

Question #27. Are there any circumstances under which you would support gun confiscations? Mandatory military service (the draft) or draft registration? What about mandatory public service?

Question #28. Would private military contractors exist without the state, and should they?

Question #29. Would war exist without the state? Is war ever necessary, and if so, when and why?

Question #30. Can a “minimal government” exist? Is it possible to have government, but at the same time, not have statism?

Question #31. Would justice systems exist without government, and should they? Could there exist such thing as a “stateless legal order”, and if so, what would it look like, and how can it be achieved?

Question #32. Does anarchy mean a lack of rules, a lack of rulers, or something else? Would rules, laws, legislation, and regulations exist without government, and should they?

Question #33. Would contracts exist without government, and what qualifications make a person competent enough to enter into an enforceable contractual agreement? Can contracts be successful without guarantees of enforcement, and if so, how?




4. Questions About Taxes and Economic Issues

Question #34. Can taxation be voluntary, or is taxation always theft? Explain your answer.

Question #35. If civil order couldn't be sustained without some sort of involuntary taxation, then would you choose to ignore the need for civil order and not impose a taxation system, or would you choose some sort of so-called “least bad” or “semi-voluntary” taxation system? If you would, then 

which system would you choose, and why?

Question #36. Is it enough to assume that all exchanges which take place, are voluntary? If not, then is it enough to require all exchanges to be voluntary? Should we have higher standards in addition to voluntaryism in economic transactions?

Question #37. Where do corporations' privileges come from; the state, or some other source? Can corporations exist without the assistance of the state? If so, how? Would it be desirable that they exist, in the absence of the state?

Question #38. Are currency and money the same thing? Are currency and money good, natural, and necessary? Would they exist without government, and should they? What can and can't be used as a currency?

Question #39. Is the use of currency voluntary, or is inflation theft? Are all forms of money and currency intrinsically subjective in value, and is this a good thing or a bad thing? Are money and currency intrinsically control tools?

Question #40. Are rent, interest, and profit good, natural, and necessary? Would they exist without government, and should they? Why or why not?

Question #41. Which is a more valuable mode of organization in an economy; cooperation or competition? Why? Are there other ways to organize the economy? Is organizing the economy desirable in the first place, and can it be done without the government?

Question #42. Are there any resources which are abundant? Are markets, competition, and trade still necessary to help distribute and allocate goods which are abundant?

Question #43. Is overpopulation real? How might your libertarian strain of thought propose we deal with the problems typically associated with “overpopulation”?



5. Questions About Partisan Politics and Authoritarian Ideologies

Question #44. Which of the two major political parties have done the most damage to economic and social freedom? If you had to choose, which party would be the easiest for your strain of libertarianism to get along with, and why?

Question #45. Which governmental departments, welfare programs, or functions do you think are the most important to abolish? Which are the most urgent to abolish?

Question #46. What are the proper roles of federal, state, and local governments, as you understand it? Do you believe it is possible to reconcile anarchism with federalism – or achieve anarchism within a federalist system like the American system - and if so, then how?

Question #47. Are there any programs or functions of government which you think it is important to delay abolishing until we are sure we can live without them (and if so, what are they?)

Question #48. Does socialism always devolve into authoritarianism? Was the Nazi regime the result of collapsed socialism, or were the Nazis capitalists (or perhaps something else)?

Question #49. How do you feel about America's decision to align with the Soviet Union during World War II? Who did more damage to economic and social freedom – and who killed more - Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin? If your strain of libertarian ideology had to align with either the Nazis or the Bolsheviks, which would you choose, and why?

Question #50. Considering your answer to the previous question, what assurances can you make to other libertarians about your strain of libertarianism's dedication to embracing freedom and liberty, and to opposing authoritarianism and states?




6. Questions About Social, Domestic, and Moral Issues

Question #51. What is your stance on positive and negative rights? What are your thoughts on the relationship between freedom, responsibility, and privilege?

Question #52. Can marriage exist without government recognition? If so, how? Has the problem of undue restrictions upon the rights of same-sex couples been solved yet, or not?

Question #53. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of abortion?

Question #54. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of public health?

Question #55. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of drug addiction?

Question #56. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of mental illness and mass shootings?

Question #57. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address environmental and ecological issues?

Question #58. How would your strain of libertarianism propose to provide people with resources which we typically perceive as public utilities (such as energy, transportation, plumbing, roads, and infrastructure)?

Question #59. What are your thoughts about the role of religion and spirituality in an anarchist, stateless, or voluntary society? Should the practice of religion be allowed in an anarchist society, or should society find a way to get rid of it as just another form of indoctrination like government?

Question #60. Where does morality come from: the state or government, religion or spirituality, or some other source?

Question #61. Does non-aggression imply pacifism, and should people who subscribe to the N.A.P. have to be pacifists? What does pacifism mean to you? If we place peace too high among our values, does it put freedom and liberty at risk? Are force, aggression, violence, and coercion ever necessary, and if so, when?

Question #62. How would your libertarian ideology deal with problems like racism, ultra-nationalism, and hate groups? When, if ever, should “hate speech” be prohibited? Should Antifa be considered a domestic terrorist group?

Question #63. In the infamous "Trolley Problem", would you pull the lever to kill one person in order to save five others; or would you do nothing and leave the lever where it is, resulting in the death of five people? Explain your answer.

Written on October 4th, 7th, and 8th, 2019

Published on October 8th, 2019

Edited on October 24th, 2019

Originally Published as

"Sixty-Two Questions Every Thinking Libertarian Should Be Able to Answer

Non-Aggression Principle Poster, and Explanation

     I have written the following as both an explanation of the above poster regarding the Non-Aggression Principle (N.A.P.), and as a response to a question about contract enforcement in a so-called “Anarcho-Capitalist” (or market-anarchist) voluntary society.

     A Facebook user posted to a libertarian discussion group the following question:

     “Honest question here for libcaps. [that is, “libertarian capitalists”] Are you okay with authoritarian force, so long as it's committed by a private party?

     For example, let's say a private company loans an individual $1,000. The individual makes the payments on time for a while, but then begins to miss payments.

     Would you advocate the company hiring a private police force to show up to the individual's house, and physically extract the amount owed from the debtor, or seize the debtor's property?”

     Another Facebook user responded that anarcho-capitalist libertarians' favored alternative to state police forces, is to allow companies to hire private police forces to do just that; show up at people's houses to collect the debt in person, or else seize assets whose value would cover the amount owed.

     Before I post my response to the original question, I would like to ask something about the question. First off, what is meant by a “private” company or “private” party? If this is a purely libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntary society, then, presumably, a private company or party would be totally unaffiliated with the state or the government. That means the company wouldn't be regulated by the government, nor taxed by it, nor would they have to abide by requirements to obtain licenses.

     Shouldn't this beg the question, “Why would a company choose to use government-issued money – one thousand U.S. Dollars – to account for what its debtors owe to it?” Isn't a voluntary, libertarian society supposed to have competing currencies and competing moneys? If we had the choice of any money or currency in the world, with no government on Earth banning any of them, why would anyone choose to use the U.S. Dollar over a more sound currency?

     The only practical way for the U.S. Dollar, much less any currency, to become a worldwide reserve currency, is through force, imperialism, and conquest. Sure, a voluntary currency could be adopted worldwide, but when the U.S. Dollar has asserted its dominance on the worldwide stage, especially in the guise of the Petrodollar, the dollar's dominance has not, for the most part, been adopted on voluntary terms.

     Wouldn't a voluntary, libertarian society – one of consistent anti-statism – consist of basically a total boycott of the state and all state-affiliated institutions? If it would, then where can I find an enterprise to work with, or work for, which does not accept U.S. dollars, does not pay taxes, is neither regulated nor licensed, nor receives any utilities nor privileges nor protections from the state, nor even registers its property ownership with the state!?

     What kind of stateless society do we have, if all properties are to be registered with the state? Registration does not confirm ownership; it reduces the owner to a mere occupant. That has nothing to do with real private property, and it sure as Hell has nothing to do with either real anarcho-”capitalism”, nor a market-anarchist society, nor a voluntary nor libertarian society, nor a stateless society.

     My response to the original question begins:

     “I'm not a former ancap [“Anarcho-Capitalist”], but rather someone who has given up talking about how AnCapistan [a generic term for a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society] could succeed, out of frustration with fellow ancaps”

     I began my comment in this manner because around 2011 or 2012, I began to notice that many libertarians were more enthusiastic about the idea that capitalism would be the dominant economic system in a voluntary society, while I was more excited about the possibility of choosing from among many different economic systems.

     Many or most libertarians evidently feel that capitalism – or free markets (which they regard as the same thing) – is the only fully voluntary economic system. Anyone who has read my work from the last 6 or 7 years will know that I disagree.

     This disagreement has led to countless arguments between left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians about how “socialism is fascism”, “socialism leads to fascism”, “the Nazis were socialist”, “socialism killed hundreds of millions”, and “all non-individualist-capitalist ideologies are collectivist and therefore fascist”, against myself, who has been arguing that lumping all of these things together as if they were the same thing, will only make them harder to understand, and, if necessary, defeat.

     But it is not necessary to “defeat” collectively-managed, non-state-affiliated, not-for-profit – that is, fully private - contract enforcement agents, nor security guards. Not as long as the person whom is having “authoritarian force” (as the original question asked) applied against them - in order to exact the debt and recoup what's owed – freely volunteers to be physically restrained or arrested, or have force used against them if they resist, as a potential consequence of failing to live up to something he contractually promised.

     And, of course, there should be a contract spelling this out in the first place. Any contract of surety, contract of trust, financial contract, or contract wherein physical harm or death could result as a consequence, should detail the circumstances in which a person must surrender themselves into custody for non-payment. But that doesn't mean he'd surrender himself to the police, it means he'd surrender himself to a non-state-affiliated debt collection agency, with its own professional recovery team, trained in non-violent means of apprehension, and knowledge of de-escalation tactics, and the ability to explain clearly that the person agreed in their contract to submit to custody if he does not pay his debts.

     But this idea should not be taken to mean that each person must choose a debt collection agency. Nor does it mean that people could be pressured to choose one. At least not in any way that satisfies the Non-Aggression Principle, being that aggression includes coercion, which presumably includes veiled threats, intimidation, harassment, psychological torture, stalking, or even pressure.

     Hopefully this makes sense to the reader. Unfortunately, many self-described “anarcho-capitalists” do not see it this way. This is partially due to their incorrect assumption that when I say that the N.A.P. should be construed to prohibit those forms of covert aggression (really, passive-aggression) in addition to more overt, direct forms of aggression, that makes me a “statist” because I supposedly mean that the government should do something about covert aggression.

     I am not saying that in the least. I am simply saying that – in addition to people not hitting, murdering, stealing from, and defrauding people – we must also not pressure people into “volunteering” for things that they do not genuinely want to do, and feel comfortable doing, without another person nagging them, and taking away perfectly viable alternatives for no good reason.

     That is as clear as I can possibly make it. I hope that my response to the original question asked by the Facebook user, will help elucidate my vision of a stateless, market-anarchist, voluntary libertarian society further:

     “I would answer 'yes [that is, I would advocate the company hire a private police force to recover their debt from the debtor in person], but only:

     1) if the person getting arrested, agrees to be arrested, as part of the terms of his contract. He should not be pressured into accepting violent arrest in any way, he should actively and enthusiastically want that [arrest] to be one of the potential consequences of defaulting on the loan, and it should be specifically stipulated in the contract.”

     By “he should actively and enthusiastically want that [arrest] to be one of the potential consequences”, I do not mean to encourage people to choose to be arrested, nor do I mean that a person should be obligated to submit to the possibility of arrest; quite the opposite.

     I mean to say that if a person would not agree to be arrested as a consequence of not paying his debt, then he should not sign a contract agreeing to be arrested in such circumstances. Only if he really insists that he should be arrested; say, since he's a man of convictions, or very confident about his ability to pay his debt back, or both, or whatever reason.

     But my point is that a person should not sign an agreement to be physically subdued for failing to abide by a contract, unless they are in no way pressured, nor coerced, into assenting to arrest (for example, because there is social pressure to use police violence or violence in general as a response to all problems, or because there are supposedly no non-violent methods of debt exaction, etc.). Assent is not consent.

     I continued:

     “Also, 2) the 'private' agency must not be sponsored by, nor affiliated with, nor protected nor subsidized by, any government, in any way.

     And 3) the private collection or arresting agency must not be required to operate on a for-profit basis. And

     4) the agency, preferably, would not accept any currency issued by a government.

     Additionally, I would urge people not to borrow money in the first place. Also, I would urge people to join into communities and voluntary associations which voluntarily choose [i.e., unanimously] to oppose usury and pernicious lending.

     That way, people who want to make their living from manipulating money, and pressuring people to go into debt, could not be lumped-into any political association, nor economic trust with others without their express consent.

     I don't endorse any bordered, nor geographically bounded, political arrangements, though, except for bioregionalism.

     I hope that I have clearly explained what firms would be like in a totally stateless, voluntary, libertarian society: non-state-affiliated, untaxed, not regulated by the state, not required to get a license nor a permit in order to operate, not required to register its property to the government, not obligated to operate on a for-profit basis, and not required to use government-issued currency.

     It would be hard to justify banning something in a voluntary society, but really, how can you call a society fully anarchist and stateless, if large numbers of people are going around using currencies issued by governments that no longer exist?

     Maybe another post I wrote will explain it concisely. Here's something I wrote to explain how interpreting the Non-Aggression Principle as meaning to prohibit a broader range of coercive activities than previously thought, is not necessarily a call for larger government, nor for any government at all:

     When I say "Usury, exploitation, pressure, harassment, and manipulation are all examples of coercion - a soft form of aggression, and a veiled threat - and are therefore unacceptable",

     I'm not saying "The state should be large and powerful enough to ban these things (in addition to performing the essential functions of providing a military, a treasury and common currency, and designating roads)",

     Nor am I saying "The Non-Aggression Principle is too narrow to encompass these less obvious forms of coercion and soft aggression".

     I'm saying "These things are wrong, and the state - being based on the monopolistic hoarding of the legal right to commit acts of violence in order to do something about it - can only make things worse, and increase abuses, and increase violations of the N.A.P., and that's why the idea that the state could handle military, treasury, or roads, was flawed from the start".

     I'm not calling for more enforcement, nor am I calling for more state violence, nor for expanding the size and scope of the federal government, nor of any government. Non-for-profit, non-state-affiliated firms can enforce people's wishes to ban these practices, if people insist that they be physically stopped from doing things they agreed not to do. No state necessary.

     All I'm calling for is for people to notice when they're coercing or pressuring others, and to stop themselves. And to know that assent is not enough. Enthusiastic and informed consent - as well as mutual benefit - must be our standards for judging whether an interaction or transaction is voluntary.

     The previous sentence should help explain why I included prohibitions on “one-sided deals” in the poster. This is not to say that gifts should be prohibited – because one could argue that only the receiver benefits from a gift – gifts are not one-sided deals, as long as the gift is not given with the intent of manipulating nor shaming the recipient, nor with the intent of pressuring the recipient into reciprocating with another gift.

     But, of course, there's nothing wrong with reciprocation, either; in fact, mutual benefit and voluntary participation are equally valuable components of a transaction which is voluntary on the part of all people involved. It's just that people shouldn't pressure others into reciprocating, because that defeats the point, and the spirit, of giving gifts. A gift should be given out of the genuine kindness of one's heart; not to manipulate people.

     And manipulation is one of the kinds of coercive behaviors which I feel should be prohibited by the Non-Aggression Principle (because coercion is a soft form of aggression).

     I do not intend to imply that it would be possible, nor even that it should necessarily be our specific goal, to eliminate all pressure from the world. Indeed, it would, no doubt, require some degree of pressure to convince people that coercion is bad, when they refuse to believe in it.

     But I mention this argument only to disprove it. The above argument willfully blurs the distinction between peaceful, rhetorical argumentation, and coercive, veiled threats. Any student of Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Stefan Molyneux – and their anarcho-capitalist-beloved “argumentation ethics” and the “against me” argument – will know that the first person in a debate who resorts to issuing veiled threats against the other person, loses the debate.

     Molyneux explained that, the way he understands argumentation ethics, to call for any form of violence – even state action and state enforcement – is to lose the debate, and concede defeat, because it is to admit that you can't win the argument without calling on the state to force your debate opponent to submit to the idea that you're proposing or defending.

     I, for one, agree with Molyneux's assessment, that that idea is part of morality, and part of the Non-Aggression Principle. The lesson of this is that we must all refrain from issuing veiled threats when we try to convince others of our ideas. To do otherwise is to admit that the only argument in your arsenal is “because I said so”. I hope that that will help enlighten the reader as to why I included issuing ultimatums in the list of prohibited activities under the N.A.P..

Post-Script:

     For those interested in the details of how voluntary contract enforcement would work in a stateless society, I recommend reading any political theory written by Samuel E. Konkin III, Robert P. Murphy, or Roderick T. Long. I would especially recommend reading those articles which concern dispute-resolution organizations (D.R.O.s), how D.R.O.s would interact with one another, how people and companies would choose who defends them both physically and contractually, and how private law and private security could replace state law and state security.

     For those interested in topics related to the non-violent apprehension of criminals and debts, I recommend reading anarchist literature concerning the abolition of prisons, studying claims that the gulag system had humane aspects, watching the prison reform scenes in Michael Moore's 2015 film Where to Invade Next, studying non-violent resistance, and following the advice in the Lord's Prayer that we be forgiven our debts "as we forgive our debtors".

Image Created on December 20th, 2018

Image Originally Published on December 20th, 2018

Image Edited and Re-Published on January 11th, 2019

Explanation Written and Added on December 27th, 2018

Post-Script Added on December 27th, 2018

Post-Script Edited and Expanded on January 11th, 2019

Poster Edited on August 26th, 2019