The Inevitable Separation

If the rule of law is what we say it is, what happens when two groups say it is something different?

What does it mean to be an American? Ask ten self-identified Americans, and you’ll probably get something about ideals of freedom and human rights for all people, and how anyone that believes in these ideals can be an American. This is American universalism. It is globalist in nature, inevitably futile, and it completely ignores reality. Let’s address these statements in reverse order before we answer the original question.

In demonstrating how American universalism ignores reality, its futility will become apparent. If America is an idea and all people can be Americans if they so choose, why aren’t there 186 United States of Americas in the world instead of just 1 U.S.A.? The reason is the people that live in all of those other countries. The Constitution is not copy written, and if it is so great to be an American, then all of the people in all of the other countries can implement the Constitution within their own boarders. So why don’t they?

Because they don’t want to. Italians like being Italian. Irish like being Irish. Saudi Arabians like being Arabs. Chinese like being Chinese. Japanese like being Japanese, and so on. However, unlike white Americans, all of these other groups recognize that not everyone is like them and they like to live their lives in their own way. In the relevant case for America today, Mexicans like being Mexican, they love Mexico, and they don’t want to become Americans despite their desire to live here.

Ignoring this reality leads to the importation of millions of people that are not Americans and do not want to be Americans. They do, however, like everything Americans have, and they want to take it for themselves. Italians did this with organized crime. The Irish did this with public offices and services. The Mexicans do this with welfare, cheap labor, and demographics. Los Angeles used to be a white city. It is now brown, black, and white. They are using their increasing population to take over the public offices and dish out welfare for themselves. This is how it is also inevitably futile to believe in the myth of American Universalism.

Mexicans are far more socialist than white Americans. They just elected a Venezuela style socialist as their president. If the Mexicans in America gain enough voting power through demographic shift, they will continue to progress this country down the road of socialism and inevitable failure.

That American universalism is globalist in nature should be fairly self-evident, however, I’ll clarify the case here. If we assume that everyone can be an American, then we recognize that everyone can subsequently live under the same government. This is the very ideal of globalism, to get everyone under one government.

The flip side of this coin is recognizing that the United States of America was founded by a specific racial and ethnic group that was established within the bounds of the country at the time of its founding, and they founded it for themselves and their descendants. They were not arrogant enough to assume that everyone could be an American. They recognized that the government they formed was for themselves and their progeny specifically. Everyone else was something else.

In the subsequent years, it was recognized that other Europeans can become American citizens, but not without a period of naturalization. It was also understood subsequent lines of immigrants are not part of the original ethic group that founded America. This is why there has been so much racial tension within the borders of the United States; different groups want to be recognized as Americans so they can justify their power and control over the system that governs all people. So, if we legitimize the Mexicans and their claims to be Americans, they will eventually take power in this country, and we will all be living in Mexico.

Now that we understand better what it means to be an American and why demographics matters, we must address the first question. Right now, there is a significant portion of the population of the United States that does not believe President Trump is legitimate, and they also believe that the rule of law is something that only applies some of the time and only to those they dislike. Illegal aliens cross the border, thus breaking our law, and are then subject to the consequences. Instead of insisting the law breakers follow the legal means for immigration, they insist our laws change to accommodate millions of indigent people that cannot read so that said indigent people can have a shot at a better life. That they end up on welfare and as a significant leftist voting block is outside the scope of this article. So the question is, how do we handle the advocates for the subversion of our laws that are considered citizens of our country?

Reasonable people have reasonable discussions. They are mature and polite in discussion, despite disagreements they may have, because they know that reason and rationality are the only ways to form civilized society. They also recognize that violence only begets violence. It is in fact the mutual threat of violence from both sides of a debate that allows for reasonable discussion. If I know my debate opponent is going to punch me in the mouth if I don’t agree with them, I’m going to make sure I can defend myself, launch a much more devastating counter attack, and make it clear that violence will not be tolerated. The other option is to not engage. This has been understood in civilized society since the dawn of discussion. Why then, is this no longer the case?

First, we have had peace for so long that the thought of violence is appalling to most. Subsequently, most people having discussions assume their opposites will be non-violent. This has led to the rise of the violent left. Conservatives and other controversial speakers have been confronted in the past few years with extreme violence from those that oppose their ideas, and power structures designed to protect citizens from violence have been utterly unresponsive. As a result, we end up with conservatives and controversial speakers not being able to speak freely.

We are faced with an extremely violent segment of society that opposes the rule of law and openly flouts it. So, how do we deal with these people? We have to separate from them. Those of us that support the rule of law and the systems that facilitate the enforcement and alteration of such laws, however imperfect, must band together and recognize that we cannot live freely with people that want to destroy our civilization.

The Nazis, Soviets, and British could not all live together, so they ended up going to war. The violent, radical left cannot live in a civilized country with the rest of us. They must be forced to comply with the law by law enforcement, and all violators must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those of us that are civilized must be willing to recognize that violence is going to inevitably ensue, but it is necessary if we are going to reestablish order. The only alternative is a dissolution of the United States, and a reformation of different countries composed of different people with different interests.

Where does anarchy come in to all of this? Anarchy is the recognition that all of life is chaos and it is individual humans who order and organize it into systems and procedures by which we all live. Just because a system is the way it is doesn’t mean it’s the way it ought to be. Nor does it mean it cannot change. As an anarchist, one must recognize that systems of order are always in a state of flux and can change whenever enough people with focused intent act to do so. Those of us that desire a more just and free social order, one that values quality over quantity, and one that honors the traditions of individual freedom and respect for individual achievement while not initiating the use of force, must recognize the potential shift in power structures as a way to establish a better system than the one we have now.

The Necessity of Choice

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to rob a liquor store, are you guilty of robbery? No. By placing your life under threat of death, I have removed all choice from you, and subsequently all agency. Anyone who tells you that you still had a choice is clearly demented as they think death is a viable option. Agency is moral responsibility for your actions. Without agency, there can be no virtue as the morality of the choice is removed from you. This is why government and all of its actions are morally wrong. Everything the government does comes at the threat of death or as a result of it.

Do you pay your taxes? I do, but not willingly. I pay them because I know that if I refuse, eventually a man with a gun will come to my house, threaten my life, put me in chains, kidnap me, and place me in a cage. If I refuse, or attempt to defend myself, he will shoot me. I have no agency in the action of paying my taxes. This is also why taxation is theft.

Now, you may say the government does some good things with the money it steals from me and everyone else in the form of taxation. Even if the money stolen in taxes goes to feed poor, blind, starving, AIDS ridden children in Africa, it is still an immoral act as the funds are ill-gotten gains. When the government provides welfare for the poor, retirement funds for the old, and education for the illiterate, it is not committing a moral action. The ends do not justify the means. Even if you support what the government is doing, you are not making a moral choice. No matter how much you delude yourself, you do not have agency in what the government is doing, and therefore neither you, nor the government is making a moral choice.

This is why anarchy is the only moral political ideal. Every individual has full agency for his or her choices, and morality falls squarely on his or her shoulders. If you choose to help the illiterate become literate, the poor get food, or the old live comfortably, you are acting morally because you have the freedom to choose not to do those things. Likewise, if you choose to rob that liquor store, you are responsible for that immoral act. Anarchy is the only system that allows humans to reach the full potential of their agency, and it is therefore the only system that can achieve human flourishing.

Internalizing Morality to Escape the Police State

The United States was founded on the idea of limited government because it was expected of the citizens to not only know the difference between right and wrong; they were expected to act upon it. In order for there to be a civilization at all, individuals must take it upon themselves to do what is right, or at the very least, not do what is wrong. Civilization is characterized by voluntary interactions between all individuals of that society. When force is initiated, civilization is lost. When individuals act in accordance with objective moral standards, no outside policing entity is necessary. However, when individuals start to act immorally, i.e. they start hurting other people or taking their stuff, an external enforcement institution is necessary. We witness this today as the police, sheriffs, FBI, and myriad of other acronym agencies from state and local governments. In a state of anarchy, the majority of these institutions would not exist, either in their current form, or at all. (I will touch on those ideas in later posts.) So, the question necessarily becomes, why do we have them now, and will we need them once we progress into a state of anarchy? This question is a two parter, so I will answer the questions separately but in order.

As it stands in the United States, we have a high degree of violent crime within urban inner city environments. Property crime is also high within these areas. These are the most dangerous places to be in the U.S. We also have suburban areas where the crime rate is next to zero. Additionally, we have an overwhelmingly large volume of laws and codes governing business interactions and corporate entities coming from state and federal governments. Laws against murder are universal within the country, so the fact that murders occur in some places and not others is evidence to the fact that it is not the law stopping murders from occurring. So, what is it then?

As with all things, it is individual choices. Individuals choose to murder, whether that choice is rational or not. Understanding those motives are beyond the scope of this article, however, it can reasonably be said that those committing the crime are of the belief that committing the act is the best choice they can make given their particular circumstances. (I will write another article on the requirements for human action at a later time.) It is my belief that in a state of anarchy, those circumstances will be dramatically different (again, I will write another article on this topic in its entirety). With different circumstances and better incentives, those that view murder as a viable option now will internalize the consequences of their actions and more than likely make the choice not to initiate harm. So, what then of the other codes and convoluted heaps of laws on the books?

It is my belief that all of these codes written by governments of all levels are attempts to control and manage the actions of peaceful and productive people. If the government can criminalize an otherwise morally neutral action, they can arrest, prosecute and control otherwise peaceful and productive people. The drug war is a perfect example of this. At its base, all you have is people growing, buying, selling, and consuming plants. There is nothing immoral about this. However, because the government has criminalized this, they have overwhelming power and authority to intervene and brutalize otherwise peaceful people. A similar situation arises with anti-trust legislation. There is nothing immoral about having a natural monopoly or almost monopoly within a completely free market system. The only way you achieve such market share is by being the absolute best producer in the market and your customers value your products. When the government writes laws intervening with this, they are expanding their power base in an effort to control and criminalize the actions of peaceful and productive people. The government wants nothing more than to accumulate power and it does that by criminalizing peaceful acts and demonizing peaceful productive people. Make no mistake, the end goal of all governments is complete tyrannical control over the people; a police state. So, how do we escape it?

When individuals act in accordance with objective morality, they do not need external enforcement agencies. Even in a state of anarchy, some enforcement and arbitration agencies will be necessary, however, their services will be voluntary and subject entirely to the will of the consumers. When you need security, you will hire a security company. When you need arbitration, you will hire an arbitration company. (This will be elaborated on in a later post as well. The information is too voluminous for this post at this point, so I ask you to trust that I know what I’m talking about for now.) If you are not satisfied with the services, you will fire them. This forces the companies to do their jobs extremely well, be as respectful to the consumers as possible, and to respect objective morality in all of their dealings. A no-knock raid at 3 A.M. will be out of the question. There is also the power of social ostracism. A person that is not complying with objective morality will be denied services within an anarchist society, thus rending them incapable of surviving on their current path, but incentivizing them to improve their behavior. An authoritarian super-state and violent police state will become ridiculous notions of a barbarous past, but how do we get from where we are to a state of anarchy?

Answering that question is one of the purposes of this blog. I want to present the truth as plainly as possible here, and I want to espouse the virtues of anarchy so everyone can start to appreciate how wonderful such a society could be and what true civilization is. As Confucius said, “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” The government is a violent, coercive organization composed of people that want to control you. Taxation is theft. War is murder. Anarchy is peace, freedom, and civilization. It is also the key to human flourishing.

How Can You Have Morality Without God?

If you are an atheist who has ever argued for objective morality, you have inevitably been asked the question, “Without God, how can you have morality?” This is a common question, and it is one that is pervasive from believers toward the non-believers. It is an important question to answer, both for the sake of establishing a sound moral theory without religion attached to it, and for the sake of preventing grand-scale physical conflict such as a holy war. In order to begin, I will establish that morality must be deducible from reality otherwise it is meaningless. Then, I will explain why this is actually a good thing from the religious perspective. Finally, I will touch on how this recognition will help stop massive violent conflict.

I have already established that morality can be deduced from reality with my article The Moral Framework. Now, I will explain why this must be the only rational case for morality in order for it to have any meaning. The religious will proclaim that morality comes from God, and they will cite the Ten Commandments and other proclamations within the Bible as evidence. I ask you this, do you know the difference between right and wrong? How do you know? Let’s take murder as an example. We can all agree that murder is wrong, yet, how do we know? Do we know it is wrong because God says so, or do we know because, either we have some inherent sense that we wouldn’t want to be killed so killing must be bad, or because we can prove it through a moral framework? If right and wrong are dependent upon dictates from God, then right and wrong are completely arbitrary and meaningless dependent solely upon God’s whim. God could just as easily proclaim that murdering people over seven feet tall is a good thing as they reach too close to heaven. I think we can all agree that this would be ridiculous. However, if morality is determined objectively, as in deduced from reality, then God’s proclamation that murder is wrong is an observation of reality, it is a declaration of what can be understood, not a dictate to be accepted mandatorily. This frees morality from dependence upon religion and places it openly in the realm of objective reality, and even the religious are better for it.

The Bible states that we are created in God’s image. If this is the case, and we as individual humans have the capacity to reason and deduce a sound moral theory from reality, then God has this ability as well.  When God declares that murder is wrong, he must be deducing this fact from observed reality and sharing his conclusions with us so we know right and wrong before we are able to deduce it rationally ourselves. Now that we are able to reason for ourselves and prove that murder is wrong from our own observations or reality, does this not bring us closer to God? I ask this question to believers in order to better understand them. I am not a believer, so I can only speculate. It is my hope that I am correct and recognizing our capacity to reason and acting upon it does in fact bring people closer to God.

Lastly, I want to explain how recognizing objective universal morality can end some of the worst and longest lasting conflicts of all time. In fact, it can end all war. Holy War is waged largely on the principle, “My God is greater than yours and he wills me to kill you.” The Crusades were about his, and the violence that comes out of the Middle East from Muslims today is also based upon this idea. Muslims fight each other over this idea, and they have the same God. Governments go to war with each other, using their citizens as cannon fodder for the same faulty reasoning. These are all representations of belief in irrational morality. “Because God wills it,” or “Because the government voted on it,” are not sound moral frameworks upon which to base action, let alone a series of actions that results in the deaths of thousands, if not millions of people. When we free ourselves from irrational belief systems, we are able to start our journey of human flourishing.

If we can recognize that there is an objective moral framework, one that deduces morality from observed reality, we can end violent conflict on a mass scale. No longer will countless human lives be thrown away at the altar of irrational belief systems. Why people believe in irrational belief systems is a discussion for another time, however, I will leave you with one final idea. Anarchy, sweet though it is, cannot prevent irrational belief systems from forming. However, it can rid us of the coercive and destructive belief systems we are currently subject to, and for that, I am forever enthralled. It is my hope, dear reader, that you will join me in my captivation.