If you believe that rulers are necessary, then you are a slave to your barbarity.
If you believe that rulers are benevolent, then you are a slave to your stupidity.
If you believe that rulers are inevitable, then you are a slave to your defeatism.
If you know that rulers are a superstition, then you are already free.
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
The Quadrilemma of Authority
If you believe that you have the right to rule others, then you are a villain.
If you believe that others have the right to rule you, then you are a slave.
If you believe that you have the right to rule others, and others have the right to rule you, then you are a dimwit.
If you believe that there is no such thing as the right to rule, then you are a friend.
If you believe that others have the right to rule you, then you are a slave.
If you believe that you have the right to rule others, and others have the right to rule you, then you are a dimwit.
If you believe that there is no such thing as the right to rule, then you are a friend.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
The Freedom of Others is Not Yours to Reject
A relatively frequent comment that one hears upon familiarizing others with the libertarian philosophy is the following: "This is all based on a psychologically mistaken assumption that people want to be free. Meanwhile, the truth is that the majority of people do not want freedom, but bread, circuses, the appearance of security, the feeling of tribal smugness, etc."
This comment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of libertarianism. Libertarianism does not claim that nobody is permitted to voluntarily assume the role of a slave, but that nobody is permitted to impose such a role on others; it does not claim that nobody is permitted to voluntarily join a slavish system, driven by bread, circuses, and tribal superstition, but that nobody is permitted to impose such a system on those who reject it or finance it out of their pockets, no matter how much of a minority group such rejecters constitute.
In other words, this kind of comment immediately betrays a collectivict slant, which libertarianism rejects from the outset. It is always worth bearing that in mind in order to maintain one's awareness that libertarianism is a social philosophy, not a marketing proposal or a party platform.
This comment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of libertarianism. Libertarianism does not claim that nobody is permitted to voluntarily assume the role of a slave, but that nobody is permitted to impose such a role on others; it does not claim that nobody is permitted to voluntarily join a slavish system, driven by bread, circuses, and tribal superstition, but that nobody is permitted to impose such a system on those who reject it or finance it out of their pockets, no matter how much of a minority group such rejecters constitute.
In other words, this kind of comment immediately betrays a collectivict slant, which libertarianism rejects from the outset. It is always worth bearing that in mind in order to maintain one's awareness that libertarianism is a social philosophy, not a marketing proposal or a party platform.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Preference Change in Social Organization
Could the governments of the world reinstate slavery? Yes, they could. They possess sufficient coercive power at their disposal. But would they dare to do it? No, they would not. The prevalent social attitude toward slavery makes such an action uneconomic from the point of view of the calculus of power.
Could warlords and mafias destroy a stateless order and replace it with a statist one? Yes, they could. They might possess sufficient coercive power at their disposal. But would they dare to do it? Only if the prevalent social attitude toward statism made such an action profitable from the point of view of the calculus of power. And there is nothing inevitable as to what this attitude will be.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Ideas are stronger than violence, even that of the most organized kind. The stationary bandit is not a necessity and the defense entrepreneur is not an impossibility. To suggest otherwise is to claim that intellectual and moral progress in the area of social organization cannot happen, which, to say the least, is a historically and anthropologically dubious suggestion.
Could warlords and mafias destroy a stateless order and replace it with a statist one? Yes, they could. They might possess sufficient coercive power at their disposal. But would they dare to do it? Only if the prevalent social attitude toward statism made such an action profitable from the point of view of the calculus of power. And there is nothing inevitable as to what this attitude will be.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Ideas are stronger than violence, even that of the most organized kind. The stationary bandit is not a necessity and the defense entrepreneur is not an impossibility. To suggest otherwise is to claim that intellectual and moral progress in the area of social organization cannot happen, which, to say the least, is a historically and anthropologically dubious suggestion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
