Principles of Free People

Before we begin, it is helpful to outline some basic terms for the purpose of making this article that much clearer. All the following definitions are from the Mirriam Webster Online dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Don't worry, though, these are english defintions, not legal ones, so they should be pretty easy to understand.

---

Principle: A comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.
Comprehensive: Covering completely or broadly.
Fundamental: Serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.
Essential: Of, relating to, or constituting essence.
Essence: The individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence.

This first set of definitions are to determine the meaning of principle. A principle is comprehensive and fundamental, which boils down to the simple fact that it cannot have exceptions. If an exception can be assigned to a principle, than it cannot be a principle for that very reason.

---

Ownership: The state, relation, or fact of being an owner.
Own: To have power or mastery over.

To own something one must have power or mastery over that thing. Two people cannot own the same thing, because only one person can have power over something at any given time. Ever see the comedies where two people attempt to steer the same car? It usually has devastating (but, since it is a comedy, funny) results, since at that point, nobody really has power over the car.

---

Self: The union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person.

You are the sum of your body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations, therefore, you are a self.

---

We now have enough definitions to determine the first principle.

Self-Ownership Principle: The comprehensive and fundamental assumption that one has mastery over the union of elements that constitute the individuality and identity of a peron.

Self-ownership is completely consistent with reality. After all, absolutely nobody has complete mastery over a person other than that person. Sometimes the behavior can be forcefully controlled, but not the emotions, thoughts, and sensations of that person. Therefore, a person owns himself.

---

Consent: To give assent or approval.
Force: Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing.
Aggression: A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.
Provoke: To stir up purposely.

These two indicate the two prerequisites toward controlling another person. You can either acquire the consent of another through the use of persuation, or you can get compliance through force. Aggression makes the point to include the word "unprevoked," which means that the aggressive party was not provoked into their action, but acted of their own volition. It can be safely assumed that the aggressor did not acquire the consent of the target for their aggression.

---

Right: Being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper.
Just: Acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
Good: Of a favorable character or tendency.
Wrong: Action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.

Anything that is right is desired, and any action that inflicts harm without due provocation or just cause is wrong, and therefore not of a favorable character.

---

At this point, we have established that any action that is consented to is not wrong, because any action that is consensual cannot by definition be harm, because a person who gives consent considers the action as favorable, or else they would not have given consent.

Additionally, at this point, we have stated that force is not necessarily right, but is right if there is due provocation or just cause. We now need to define a rule that separates wrong from right force. At this point, we can cover the counterpoint to the Self-Ownership Principle.

Non-Aggression Principle: It is wrong to practice aggression against the non-consenting.

The use of the word "aggression" rather than "force" is a key piece of this principle. It could not be a principle if the word "force" was used, as pacifism, while admirable, is self-defeating. Self-defense is part and parcel with self-ownership, and is therefore a fundamental part of the principle. Eliminate the self-defensive force, and you won't own yourself for very long without external protection.

Essentially, it states that one should only use force when defending their property, e.g. themselves. Any other use of force is wrong.

---

Finally, we can bring this into what I've been talking about with just about all the articles posted so far.

Prohibit: To prevent from doing something.
Regulate: To make regulations for or concerning.
Regulation: An authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure.
Compel: To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.
Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law.
Government: The body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization, the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it, and the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out.

The definition of government is pretty long-winded, but then, it has to be.

A "political unit" is essentially an organized group of people who agree to a certain set of policies, also known as laws. In this political unit is a government, which is a smaller group of people who makes those laws, and sees to the punishments of those who break the laws.

Laws fall into three categories, prohibitions, regulations, and compulsions.

Prohibitions are the laws that state that something cannot be done at all. Examples of prohibitions include prostitution, mind-altering substances, and assault weapons.

Regulations are the laws that state that something can only be done in a certain way, and with the permission of the government. Regulations exist for just about every activity out there, such as building codes, licensing for many professions, and driver's licences, vehicle registrations, and tags to drive a car.

Compulsions are those laws that are mandatory for all members of the political unit. The most obvious compulsions are payment of taxes, and the acceptance of the Federal Reserve Note as a form of currency to repay debt.

The main problem with government is not that it exists. Two things cause a huge amount of the problems we see in society and the world in general:

1. Jurisdiction focuses on land area rather than voluntary membership.
2. Laws are enforced through aggressive action.
   

Land-based jurisdiction is wrong, according to the Principle of Non-Aggression, simply because the demand that all persons in a geographical area obey the laws of a group they don't necessarily want to be a part of is aggression; they do not consent to an action, and yet, they are not otherwise provoking anyone, but simply seeking their own happiness in their own way. A government that is consistent to the principle of non-aggression is one that is built around a voluntary political unit; such a unit would recruit new members, and then enforce the laws on those members, leaving open the option for the members to leave the political unit.

Additionally, enforcement through aggression is definitively against the non-aggression axiom. This, of course, doesn't apply to protective measures; a policeman protecting a victim from their aggressor is not aggressing himself, but is performing a justified (and no doubt consensual) defense of the victim, and so would not be incompatible. However, any police or military who enforces a compulsion, regulation, or prohibition on a person who is otherwise not aggressing against anyone is themselves aggressing, and therefore is violating the non-aggression principle.

And for those who believe that a nozick-style government meets the requirements even if it is area-based, let's remind you that taxes are a compulsion, and therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle.

At this point, I hope you are beginning to see the other side of government, and are able to make the connection between a government (as it exists today) and a very large gang. Perhaps the two principles might just make you realize that some of the fundamental assumptions you have of certain activities might not be correct. Or maybe you already agree with me and found this to be helpful. In any event, I hope you can come to realize the nature of freedom, and join me in the effort to enlighten others toward true freedom.

The Benefit of Greed

"We need to rid the world of greed."

This is not only impossible, it is a very bad idea in general. If we were to get rid of the greedy, we would have nobody left. Yes, even the charitable types. Yes, even people like Mother Theresa. Obviously, this sounds like an extreme position. That is because it is an extreme position, equally as extreme as the first sentence but like all extremes, it is designed to make a point clear.

Think about this, why do people do what they do? Because what they do either makes them feel good, or it makes them feel less bad. Whether it's pleasure or guilt, the greed is nothing more than a motivation to push your life in the direction you want it to go. Some have the overwhelming self-control to limit that greed, but even then, that is because another form of desire is pushing against the more obvious desire; one form of greed is overriding another form.

So why am I advocating greed?

Greed is the primary force of will; it is the drive that all people have to make their lives better, happier, and more fulfilling. In many cases, they have a faulty idea as to what makes their lives better, but it is not the greed that is the problem, but poor judgment. It is also a case of not having enough information. In both ways, they are being driven toward a goal that they themselves aren't really aware of, and often are influenced by others who share the same set of faulty reasonings.

The most powerful forms of misinformation people suffer from involve money, influence, morals, and sex.

Money is a fallacy; money is nothing more than the middleman between two services, a way for something of value to be portable for barter. The idea that money is anything else is a mysticism encouraged by those who make money their business; marketing the dollar allows the dollar to be more important, and more important dollars mean more control over the people who use them.

There are many forms of influence. Friendship means you have influence with one other person. Popularity means you have influence over many. However, political influence is simply influence through threat. All government power comes at the point of a legion of guns, distributed evenly throughout an entire region. Sometimes these guns are hidden behind a suit jacket or a concealed holster in an unmarked car. Other times, these guns are proudly displayed along with a badge, uniform, and an obviously-marked car with flashing red-and-blue lights. But don't be fooled, these are nothing more than guns with a complex aiming mechanism called people.

Perhaps you are one of those "complex aiming systems?" Perhaps you take offense to my statement above? Perhaps you should consider the nature of your job. Follow orders, enforce laws, and arrest those who do not obey. As long as you meet those requirements of your job, then congratulations, you are nothing more than an aiming mechanism. If you only protect other people from forceful acts, and resist enforcing laws against consensual behavior, regardless of whether you consider the behavior right or wrong, then I can gladly say that you are not part of the problem, and you have my grateful respect for your profound ethics.

Speaking of "Right and wrong," morals are another faulty premise in today's society. Not that morals don't exist, nor do I believe in moral relativism, but the creation and enforcement of laws based on one particular group of peoples' personal definition of morals aren't exactly right.

Many religions have a "do unto others" clause; the idea that one must treat others with the respect they want in return. This is an excellent base to found moral theory, and certainly a good start for a system of laws. However, the problem is that the point of this clause is completely sidelined to its literal meaning to a society in question; it's easy to do things to others when they do something one doesn't. You don't mind someone taking guns away of you don't have one. You don't mind someone taking all food away if you don't need to eat. You don't mind someone shooting other people in the arms if you had lost yours. Yes, they're all extreme, but they make the point nicely.

The way the clause should be interpreted would be to consider a basic fact: you want to have a happy, fulfilling life. You have a set of goals in which you plan to achieve this happy, fulfilling life. You would wish that others do not interfere with your plan to have a happy, fulfilling life. This same kind of rationale applies to others as well: They want to have happy, fulfilling lives, too. They would wish that you do not interfere with their plan to have a happy, fulfilling life. If you respect them, as the clause demands, then you will respect their wishes not to be interfered with their pursuit, and they should respect your wishes as well.

In other words, as long as you respect that simple request from others, do what you wish to be as happy as possible. Of course, conflicts arise. However, violent action to resolve differences only results in more violent activity. In some cases, it is justified; they have broken the clause's rule, and you have every right to defend yourself. But if harming you or your property is neither the goal, nor the result of the other's actions, then you have no right to make demands of them, according to the "Do unto others" clause... because doing so would not be respecting them, and therefore breaking the clause's rule.

Sex is so over-rated these days. Poets and artists, scriptwriters and actors; wherever there is a form of media, you won't find sex and its emotional trappings far. Passions ignite to drive the souls of two people together, bound by destiny, for all of time, and against all odds, they shall conquer any and all opposition, and life itself. A lot of you are probably feeling pretty passionate right now after reading that sentence, aren't you? And why?

The sex drive is real. I won't deny this by any stretch of the imagination. We would not have populated the planet nearly as quickly without it. It is a scientific fact, driven by very real hormones developed by very real glands. And when two people perform the act, their bodies are flooded with endorphins, making them feel very good.

But, as a result, the people who reproduce pass on this endorphin rush during sex, and those who have an effective skill with words will give the rush a religious fervor. Over the centuries, the reinforced "good feeling" is translated to some mystic reality in which lovers are solely subject to, some kind of veil that one passes while in the throes of tumultuous passion, and the eternal connection of love that can defeat everything just by being.

In essence, people have convinced themselves that there is more to the sexual drive than the simple act and its attendant good feelings, that there is some form of connection that occurs. Then, when something happens and horrible, nasty reality sets in, the dream is shattered, and then the other side of the coin shows its ugly face; crimes of passion are cliché, but that is not because they are not common. Once again, they are operating on an overblown description of something that is much simpler and much less important than it is made out to be.

These four things often drive most of the implacable actions of people who are greedy, greedy for those things that they have decided are good, right, and much more than they should be.

Now, we have approached the original question, if all these things can make greed from a form of personal motivation to a corrupt form of viciousness, why do I still support the concept of greed? It is because greed is motivation, and without it, there can be no drive. Without greed, there is no desire for improvement in one's life, there are no goals, no ambition... no destiny at all. People will have no reason to do anything.

So, how does one control greed, and prevent it from being the out-of-control monstrosity we have?

There are two things one must have to keep something in control: something to channel it and something to oppose it. The channel for greed is knowledge. When people learn in the attempt to gain that which they desire, they have a way to channel that greed to a much better path. The opposite of greed is competition; and, when all greed is unchecked, nobody's greed is going to overwhelm the rest.

Of course, you may reply, what about governments? Are they not unchecked against the greed of their people?

All throughout history, empires have fallen. Governments have reached a point where the collective greed of the people, the collective desires and drives to achieve their needs have overwhelmed the previously-overwhelming government. In such cases have governments been overthrown by revolution. Sooner or later, the balance will always return.