1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16382/its-time-to-rethink-everything/

It’s Time to Rethink Everything

April 6, 2011 by

What’s especially brilliant about Ron’s new book is that he doesn’t just deal in abstractions. He takes on 50 difficult areas of politics today and shines a new light of liberty on each of them. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and then enlightenment.

FULL ARTICLE by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.


Scott LeGear April 6, 2011 at 9:36 am

Larken Rose has also written a new book which “Strikes at the Root” and is called “The Most Dangerous Superstition.” It is perhaps the most clear, concise and logically consistent book on the nature of human relations that I’ve ever read. You can find it at Amazon or you can get it directly from the author at LarkenRose dot com for ten bucks including postage. I cannot recommend it more highly.

- Scott

norman April 6, 2011 at 9:56 am

You say: “Ron is a vehement opponent of abortion, But if a community wants to permit the practice, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way. ” But Paul favors local restrictions.

It seems to me that the libertarian position would be: government opposition on the local level would be just as abhorent as on the federal level. His position on gun control seem to contradict his position on abortion. If the federal government says guns are ok then gun prohibition on the local level is bad. Which is it?

Matthew Swaringen April 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm

Guns and abortion are vastly different subjects. I think it makes no sense to compare them in this way personally.

Faithkills April 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm

While I know it’s out of fashion to find anything in the Constitution (before it was vitiated) to be of interest, I submit that the hybrid approach of Federalism is a fair compromise between collectivist and individualist political approaches. If a state overreaches people can vote with their feet and even the potential of this is an impediment to collectivism.

Our problems aren’t the result of misguided state policy. They are the result of misguided federal ‘one size fits all’ policy. If one community wants to outlaw abortions, so be it. They cannot stop someone from driving over the border to a more free state.

Would I prefer a minarchist state? Of course. But the compromise of federalism as originally embodied in the Constitution is entirely tenable. There’s still the question of whether it’s possible for a Constitution to maintain it’s integrity over time. The evidence in favor of that is poor.

The ability of states and smaller geographic areas to pass collectivist laws at some point approaches the question of voluntary slavery. If you choose to live under collectivism when you could chose NOT to, even if with some inconvenience or cost, the question must be asked: is it legitimate from a libertarian perspective to proscribe that optional choice?

As a pragmatic matter I think the position is much more saleable politically and draws people into the fold who might otherwise reject liberty on the basis of abortion alone.

Eric April 6, 2011 at 4:51 pm

I know Ron is not an anarcho-capitalism libertarian, like say, Rothbard, but here’s they way I see the local level with respect to libertarianism.

When a piece of land is first owned via homesteading, the owner of that land has the right to decide what people can do on that land. If some tract of homes is built on homesteaded land (or land bought up later – in its entirety) then just as in ccr’s a tract of land might have a contract stipulating that no buyer of a home will permit their family members to have an abortion.

I used to own a house where the ccr’s forbid overhead wiring or antennas being mounted on houses. I had to agree before I bought the house.

This way it’s not force by the outside, but by agreement before one buys. These ccr’s couldn’t be changed except by some provision in them. What to do if someone has an abortion anyway, well, the ccr’s would have to have a provision. What about teens born there? Well, again, this must be in the ccr contract. Might something come up that wasn’t thought about, sure, nothing is perfect.

Anti-IP Libertarian April 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm

“When a piece of land is first owned via homesteading, the owner of that land has the right to decide what people can do on that land.”

I am afraid minarchism doesn’t work that way.

The owner of that land only has some rights to decide what people can do on that land. Others are reserved for the government.

Eric April 6, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Minarchism. Yes, you’re right. Ron is probably that form of libertarian. I guess I was talking about full-Archism, as per Rothbard, where there isn’t a band of criminals that call themselves the government.

There are a number of degrees of libertarianism. That’s probably the best answer for Norman.

Andrew April 7, 2011 at 8:01 am

The article does not say that Paul favors local restrictions. Only that if a community decided to allow abortions, the federal government shouldn’t have anything to say about it.

Walt D. April 7, 2011 at 12:54 pm

“It seems to me that the libertarian position would be: government opposition on the local level would be just as abhorent as on the federal level. ”
The libertarian position on abortion is very simple – if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one.

socrates April 6, 2011 at 10:32 am

Ron Paul has always been the one politician who has been consistent in his views whether in the 80s or today and for that I salute him. Those of us outside politics cannot begin to understand the difficulty and challenges which comes with such views as has been espoused by Ron Paul and that is why my respect for him is beyond imagination. Even on such recent controversial topics as the mosque in New York, where one would expect politicians to shy away from the issue altogether or at least side with the mainstream, he defiantly refused to participate in the political rhetoric and recognized private property rights and refused to bash the whole muslim community.
He will not bend the definitions of liberty to appease the masses, he defines it and allows it to be applied to all. Ron Paul defends all peoples irrespective of faith, race, sexual orientation and that is what attractive about him. You can always count on him to defend the truth.

Carolyn Alder April 6, 2011 at 10:35 am

Thank you Lew. I appreciated your review of Ron Paul’s book very much. I would like to see someone like him who understands LIBERTY, in the office of the President, but where he is in Congress, is actually the best for watching out for proper legislation. The presidents have been allowed to become legislators-in- chief, but that is not according to the Constitution.

My husband, Gary Alder and I have written a book, “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College.” This will also be released soon. We would like to send you a copy.

It is an in-depth analyses of the Framers’ ingenious system to identify the best possible presidential candidates, and place statesmen, not politicians, in the White House (executive office). It was quickly destroyed by the machinations of party politics. To restore the republic, patriots must understand this unique process.

Wildberry April 6, 2011 at 10:53 am


This was a stirring review, and I just ordered the book. I have one question, however;

Where does this come from?

You are permitted to argue about what the state’s priorities ought to be (bombs or butter), but not to question the fundamental model of a state-dominated society.

I am unaware of any restriction whatever concerning what I am “permitted to argue about”. I think this question is being asked and debated today more than any time in my lifetime.

Can you explain where you are coming from with this statement?

C.J. April 6, 2011 at 11:54 am

Mr Rockwell is saying that the terms of the debate in society have been warped in such a way as to make arguments regarding the state itself out of bounds. The fact that people are now starting to question the terms of the debate is the exception that proves the old rule. People are waking up to the new terms: it isn’t what the state should promote or discourage that matters; it’s whether the state should exist at all in its present form.

Enjoy Every Sandwich April 6, 2011 at 11:59 am

There isn’t a statutory restriction (that I know of!) against questioning the state-dominated society, but the argument will be labeled “fringe”, “extremist”, “crazy” etc. and will be ignored. The gatekeepers of “rational” political debate have declared it off-limits.

R Lee April 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm

If one comes to a truth outside the mindless masses, one naturally should expect to collect mindless labels. But the truth will eventually be vindicated, so who cares what they think?

Wildberry April 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm


Who are these “gatekeepers”? That’s what I don’t get.

Sione April 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Small “c” conservative fanatics like you, mate!


Wildberry April 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm


What did I do to piss you off?

Anti-IP Libertarian April 6, 2011 at 3:11 pm

Being a statist conservative seems enough.

Joe April 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm

The gatekeepers are the political parties with the greatest vested interest in the make-up of the status quo. Let me explain. I used to live in a very liberal state, California. The state is run by the democrats because the people of the state are all for handouts and what can the government do for me mentality. So I said screw that and I upped and moved to a very conservative state, Idaho. The Republicans play the same games only involving different groups of people. In Idaho you had better be a business and it helps to have a religious background, if you get my drift. Then if you try to present libertarian sanity to any issue both the California democrats and the Idaho republicans look at you the same way, confused. You can present arguments but don’t rock the boat. I don’t really call them gatekeepers but trolls.
Being a libertarian can become very frustrating at times. No one wants to beat their head aganist the wall each day, but that is what you have to do with the trolls. I try to make sure there are no new trolls. It’s a bitter battle but that’s the least I can do.
One good thing about Idaho is during the 2008 state primary for president Ron Paul received 25% of the vote. Sione’s candidate, John McCain won. (Just kidding)

Eric April 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm

States change with time. I moved to CA from PA 40 years ago because I perceived CA as the more free state. Things sure have changed here.

Today, there’s a movement of libertarians to move to a small state and try to change it. I believe New Hampshire is the one they chose.

The idea behind federalism was that there would be competition so people could vote with their feet, as you and I did. Today, with most of the rules coming from DC it’s a bit tough to do that, but still there are 48 other states we could choose from. I only wish the free staters would have chosen a warmer climate.

Freedom Fighter April 6, 2011 at 11:04 am

“or businesses to investigate credit histories of their employees. As one application, he favors total drug legalization but defends the rights of business to drug test.”

I would never work for a business that wants to investigate my credit history. I have always paid my debts and I am not a crook. Those who accept this level of scrutiny just to get a job are not respecting themselves.

It’s like being groped by the TSA at the airport and Ron Paul denounced that rabidly.

Matthew Swaringen April 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm

So you expect them just to trust you at your word? I don’t think you are making sense.

Joe April 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm

Freedom Fighter,
Ron paul is very consistent when he applies the concept of liberty. The business will win or lose based on what the market says about any policy. If the creme of the crop won’t work for a company because of the restrictive background check then the business loses. If you decide not to work for a company that has a restrictive background check then that is your right. It might make your universe of employers smaller but that is your decision. I too would not subject myself to a credit check. Some phsycholgist told the company that you can tell if an employee is going to be reliable based on a credit report. For the same reason the “interview” does not tell an employer how a person will perform on the job. All the interview does is let the employer know that a person has all their required body parts, it not spitting up on themselves and can string to two sentences together.

RTB April 6, 2011 at 8:46 pm

But of course! And you are free to apply for that particular job or not.

Alpheus April 7, 2011 at 10:52 am

I would not object to a business choosing to set up TSA checkpoints as a condition to work there. I would simply choose not to work there!

One of the restrictions I am likely to choose for myself is one of size: if a company is big enough that employees need to have identification, I will likely not want to work there. That doesn’t mean that I have to oppose businesses that choose to be so large that IDs are necessary; nor would I want a law passed against such things.

Walt D. April 8, 2011 at 12:03 am

“I have always paid my debts and I am not a crook.”
Too bad we can’t say that about most of the companies who do credit background checks! :-)

billwald April 6, 2011 at 11:37 am

>I would never work for a business that wants to investigate my credit history.

That’s “fair.” Me, I have nothing to hide regarding credit history. I think. Don’t know and don’t care what my official credit history is.

The one who pays the piper names the tune.

Joe April 6, 2011 at 3:34 pm

I checked your credit today and I think you better re-think your stance.

billwald April 8, 2011 at 12:53 am

Thanks, but I don’t need credit. My only long term debit is a mortgage on a couple acres which I could pay off with cash. I run most of my money thru a credit card which kicks back about $600/year and is paid off every month.

Ryan S April 6, 2011 at 12:37 pm

This is a powerful quote:

The worst effect of the state is intellectual. It puts our brains in a prison, simply by defining the terms in which we are permitted to think and speak.

Duplicating data online is “theft.” When the State steals, it’s called “taxation.” If you sleep with someone under 18, it’s “rape.” If you kill someone in war, it isn’t murder. These are a few examples that have brainwashed the majority of the population.

pariah1 April 6, 2011 at 2:26 pm

The publication of Ron Paul’s new book is great news! I just hope to find at least one chapter in which he attacks the prevailing delusion: That central banks create money rather than circulating credit that must be treated as money by force of legal tender laws—i.e., fiat currency. That delusion (See page 235 of Keynes’ “The General Theory…”) is the key to the “Keynesian Revolution”. The KR, in turn, has served as the financial and political foundation for growth of the welfare/warfare state over the past half century. Dispel the “brains in a prison” delusion that “the US dollar” is a strip of rag paper with the number one in each corner (or an electronic claim for same) rather than a specific weight of gold or silver, and we may yet have a chance for a libertarian future. Here’s hoping, Ron.

Sortel April 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm

The review seems excessive in its exuberant claims. Have other American libertarians not been writing in recent decades? And the reviewer hails Paul’s contradictory views on abortion as if it were a special exemplification of his clarity.

BioTube April 6, 2011 at 4:23 pm

Have other elected officials done something like this? That’s the point. As for abortion, placing the restrictions on a local level is much better than what we have now – we must always push for perfection, but we can’t let it become the enemy of the good.

Anti-IP Libertarian April 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm

“As for abortion, placing the restrictions on a local level is much better than what we have now”

Not really.

Whether there is a state-wide, district-wide or federal-wide government and its laws does not make a difference regarding rightfulness.

If ten people decide to rob a person (and make a law for that) does not make that case better than millions of people doing the same.

Anthony April 6, 2011 at 9:32 pm

Anti-IP Libertarian,

What if it is structured like a condo-type agreement? I buy only part of the rights to the house, the rest of the rights are held be the condo corporation. This allows the condo association to restrict my actions vis a vis the condo in a manner entirely legitimate within a free society.

I am free to by a house that is not part of the condo association, buy if I buy from them I am well aware of my right and obligations (condo fees are not equivalent to taxes). If I signed an agreement when I purchased my house saying “I agree to abide by this and that restriction or I am required to sell my house” I presume that that would be unproblematic.

Does this situation change if I sign a form agreeing that abortion is to be considered criminal aggression in the community that I choose to reside in? Obviously this would only bind the signatories to the agreement but I don’t see that it is counter to libertarian ethics. What do you think?

Andy April 7, 2011 at 12:34 am

Abortion is (supposed to be) a protected right. That doesn’t stop some pro-lifers from harrassing and murdering to accomplish what they feel is right. If the “law of the land” isn’t respected, why would residential abortion agreements be recognized as legitimate?

As time goes by, it becomes more difficult to find a place to live that allows me to get abortions anytime I want, smoke weed, do meth, have sex on my front lawn for all to see, open a firework factory in my garage, and…doesn’t allow lawns to be mowed before dawn or after dusk.

Proximity to different properties can make many and all of your condo rules ineffectual. Noise restrictions on your street don’t mean shit if your neighbor on the next street has nightly death metal concerts, as per property agreement allowance.

Why should I have to move everytime some asshole comes along and disrupts what I have come to expect as courteous and considerate? Being an economizer, I chose to restrict some behavior to my benefit.

Andy April 7, 2011 at 4:41 am

“I agree to abide by this and that restriction or I am required to sell my house” I presume that that would be unproblematic.”

No. It is very problematic. Your capacious idea of legal jurisdiction belonging to the owner of a condo is absurd. The only “law” agreement that I would submit to is the one that pertains to the surface area of my couch alone, which is very liberal compared to the Hole In A Sheet Principle of governance. I challenge you to google “hole in a sheet” and witness what “real” liberty is like. Slave.

unpopular April 7, 2011 at 7:56 am

His position means that you’re just shifting policies from different levels of government that would ultimately have the same effect. Government interference.

I think that in this case Mr. Paul’s religious convictions are conflicting with his libertarian values, as i think he hopes local regulation would ultimately lead to regulation that would favour his religious conservative views over what he percives to be liberally biased federal regulation on these matters. This would be the case for same sex amrriage as for abortion.

Alpheus April 7, 2011 at 11:37 am

As a pro-life anarcho-capitalist, I would have to point out that it’s a little dangerous to assume that you’ll be completely free to do whatever you want once we get rid of the State, and replace it with a free-market version.

I oppose the illegality of drugs, for example–but I do not condone recreational drug use, nor do I expect consequences for recreational use to go away. Indeed, recreational drug use should be punishable: it should be valid cause for divorce, for dismissal from employment, for the withholding of funds from charity, and for disinheritance. In a free society, I would not condone imprisonment for anyone who uses drugs recreationally, but I do not have to support such a person, or to associate with such a person, either.

To someone who commits murder, I would even go so far as to say that such a person may be declared an outlaw, with the right of the survivors of a victim to take the murderer’s life, for any reason.

Why couldn’t the same types of things happen to those who have an abortion? Surely, if I value the life of even the unborn, wouldn’t I pursue such actions? And if the entire society valued the life of the unborn strictly enough, it may be difficult for someone who aborts a baby to find a judge who will abstain from declaring such a person an outlaw, as previously described!

Having said all this, in an anarcho-capitalist society, I would suspect that the father of an unborn child will have more rights to preventing an abortion than he currently has in our system of law.

augusto April 7, 2011 at 11:55 am

“I oppose the illegality of drugs, for example–but I do not condone recreational drug use, nor do I expect consequences for recreational use to go away. Indeed, recreational drug use should be punishable: it should be valid cause for divorce, for dismissal from employment, for the withholding of funds from charity, and for disinheritance. In a free society, I would not condone imprisonment for anyone who uses drugs recreationally, but I do not have to support such a person, or to associate with such a person, either.”

All the things you mentioned there could be solved through private contracts. Companies and individuals should be free to decide whether they want to establish, in the contract, whether drug use should be a cause for dismissal. As for the divorce thing… anything is accepted as “valid cause”, even today. I don’t think the US or any other western country forces people to stay together as a couple if one of them doesn’t want to be in that situation anymore.

You married someone who turned out to be a drug user? File for divorce, get away. Want to stay with this person and try to save him or her? Then do that. I don’t think there is a need for an additional law specifying that people should be allowed to divorce in case one of the members of the couple is a drug user.

Alpheus April 7, 2011 at 12:48 pm

agusto said: “I don’t think there is a need for an additional law specifying that people should be allowed to divorce in case one of the members of the couple is a drug user.”

I’m talking about anarcho-capitalism, for crying out loud! Under this system, there’s only one “law”: your contract, the lawyers advising the parties, and the judge that the parties settle on; perhaps “police services” companies may be involved, too.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, I would expect that formal “marriage contract” would be much more clear, in terms and consequences of breaking them, than the current system of state-granted “marriage licenses”. I would also expect that more cause would be needed to break these contracts, than is currently given in divorce law. This is in stark contrast to current law, where married people are expected to “know” the law, and where it can change under the feet of the two parties with little notice.

To think that you could use recreational drugs, or have abortions, in absolute impunity, in an anarcho-capitalist environment, is a bit silly: those who care about such things (such as myself) will establish consequences for such things.

Dagnytg April 8, 2011 at 4:04 am


With all do respect, you seem to be lacking a deeper understanding of basic libertarian concepts such as non-aggression and property rights. Those ideals are deeply rooted among the few who are anarcho-libertarians.

To embrace those ideals it is understood, regardless of how a person may feel about someone’s actions or choices…it does not allow for the persecution of others through violence and property violation.

You might say libertarians are the most tolerant of any political persuasion. In simple terms, we believe people should mind their own business.

Your comment implies that you envision (and would actively participate in) a society where people do mind what others do with their property…and that is not an anarcho-libertarian vision but a vision no different then what we are living today.

Alpheus April 8, 2011 at 10:32 am

Dagnytg, I *do* understand the non-aggression principle and property rights. What I have been describing as “punishment” for things like drug use or abortion, rests entirely on contract law, freedom of association, the rights of parents to withhold their inheritance from errant children, and possibly the power of a judge to declare someone an outlaw subject to appeal (a principle I took from Medieval Icelandic Law, which is debatably consistent with the non-agression principle when it is applied to murderers, rapists, and others who have initiated aggression).

My point has been, and continues to be, that “punishment” for things like drug use and abortion can exist in an anarcho-capitalistic society, and likely will–but such punishment will not involve state agents breaking down doors, dragging the offender to court, and then sending that person off to prison.

Heck, we can see shadows of this even today: while it technically isn’t illegal to convert to a religion different from your parents, for example, it darn well is legal for your parents to disinherit you for doing so.

Dagnytg April 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm


I think the problem I have is your use of the word punishment as somehow synonymous with choice. If I take the wki definition of punishment, it reads:

The authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person….in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group.

The problem is the word “imposition” which means forcing ones will on another. It implies a violation of ones person and property. This is a contradiction of libertarian ethics.

If I choose not to give my inheritance to a family member, I have not imposed on anybody. I’ve only made a choice.

If I don’t hire someone because they didn’t pass a drug test…again, I have only made choice. There has been no imposition or force.

Though I do not want to get into a debate on abortion, it follows the same logic.

Let me conclude that discussions on personal choice and what ones does with their free will, within the parameters of property rights, is one of psychology and not libertarian in nature. The fact that you have brought these issues up makes me question your understanding of anarcho-libertarianism. It seems to me you’re trying to rationalize anarchy through the precepts of minarchy.

Alpheus April 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Dagnytg, I would confess that my understanding of “anarcho-capitalism” may be imperfect; in particular, I think my vocabulary is rather immature. In my defense, whenever I referred to punishment in my previous quotes, I always put it in quotes, because what I was calling “punishment” in my comments corresponds one-to-one to the “choices” you describe in your latest comment. But what I’ve been describing is nothing like the intricate system of fines, imprisonment, and even execution that we currently have.

My point continues to be that the idea that things like drug use and abortion being consequence free in an anarcho-capitalist society a misnomer, and that one can advocate anarcho-capitalism and be pro-life without any contradiction. You just can’t directly force anyone to be pro-life under such a system.

Dagnytg April 11, 2011 at 4:14 pm


Thanks for the clarification. My comment(s) was aimed to get you and me to think deeper on the issues of anarcho-libertarianism. I also wanted to make sure you understood what you were saying. I believe the goal has been accomplished. I appreciate your patience with my prodding.

The anarcho distinction is a lofty one and in my opinion of the highest intellectual understanding. It requires a person to strip themselves of emotionalism (fear) and embrace the belief that most people, given the chance, strive to do good.

We must constantly be rigorous in our thinking because our detractors judge humanity as inherently evil and use emotionalism (fear-of no government) as a means to attack our position. It’s very important that we constantly sharpen our definitions and be precise in our thinking. As a mathematician, I’m sure you understand.

It is always a pleasure to have writers on this site, like yourself, who are attempting to challenge themselves and others. The result is producing better thinkers, writers, and representatives (in many ways disciples) of the freedom movement.

Alpheus, good luck on your intellectual journey and having read your blog, I see your well on your way…

Vanmind April 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm

I think it’s part review, part jumping the stumping gun for an impending presidential race.

Sione April 6, 2011 at 7:55 pm


Who says I was pissed off?


R Lee April 6, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Just from looking at the review Paul would seem to be getting closer to what I’m always advocating: every individual free to do whatever action X, but every other individual also free to respond to that action in whatever way he deems appropriate. Nothing less is worthy of being called freedom. The very idea that ANY one person or group can be given power without abusing it_and growing it_defies both reason and experience.

Vedapushpa April 6, 2011 at 11:03 pm

Ron Paul is ‘obviously’ a Statesman and not a mere Politician ordinary.
Politics of the day which the world over stands as more an impediment tnan an instrument of human safety and prosperity has much to balme the undue ‘politicization’ of other human interest-factors like money and material capital – family and community social sharing [Commmune]- and the inteleectual factors of science – arts and religion – all of which have been ‘Ismized’ to get thmselves a ‘pokitical aura’ as it were !
Ron Pauls will definitely serve as the nuch needed shear and sheath vis a vis the present political
‘hide & seek’ that has definitely rendered nations into ‘dysfunctional diatribic dangers’.

Ron Paul’s Definitive thesis on the cherished political values of Protection of Individual liberty l and the State/National Soveriegnity is indeed a dose of ‘life saving medication’ both for those affected common folks and the afflicted political bigwigs.

Thanks again for Ron Paul’s perseverence and pursuative efforts – He obviously has faith in the adage “Be the Change that You want to See’ a la Mahatma Gandhi of India and the current Indian Citizen-bravo Mr Anna Hazare who is into a ‘fast unto death’ [since three days as of now] demanding Political judical Accoutability at the Prime Minister Level as also an instant formal initiative to let in the Citizenery representation into their anti-corruption councels and committees.

social anthropologist

billwald April 8, 2011 at 1:06 am

This is the Appendix to Ron Paul’s new book, Liberty Defined.

Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

Sorry about lost formatting These principles just about guarantee that the rich will get richer through monopoly and price fixing while the majority of the people become “free” industrial serfs.

As Lou Rockwell’s friend, Gary North noted:


The US Constitution was written to produce the exact government we have.

Joe April 8, 2011 at 10:19 am

You better not pay taxes on the property you own. You are just supporting the government.

lester April 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm

I respect the pro life position and the general social conservative one but alot of these issuesseem to be sub issues of the economic one. Many women have abortions because they can’t afford to raise a child (or one more child). People get divorced, drink, etc because of money issues very often too. So to me the money issue is the one to fix, not these other things. Aim for the puppeteer not the puppet. Stoping the drastic inflation and taxation seems a better way to cut down if not eliminate these things rather than passing laws or even judgements against them.

Alpheus April 11, 2011 at 12:25 pm

“Many women have abortions because they can’t afford to raise a child (or one more child). People get divorced, drink, etc because of money issues very often too. So to me the money issue is the one to fix, not these other things.”

Oh, there’s certainly room for improvement! For example, what would happen if women can sell their children to a couple who would like to adopt? Or even just freely drop that child off to the family? In both these cases, though, such actions are currently illegal. Indeed, it costs tens of thousands of dollars just to adopt a child!

For some reason, we (as a society, that is: I somehow doubt that Austrian economists have this problem!) have become convinced that only the State has the best interest of the child at heart, and that individuals, even parents, will do all sorts of evil things to children, without State intervention.

As for myself, I would propose that transferring custody of a child, regardless of the circumstances, is the right of every parent (so long as both parents are in agreement to the initial transfer), and that any abuse of that child after the transer–up to and including slavery and prostitution–should be on the heads of the persons who commit the abuse. The only way that the abuse should be on the originators of the transfer, would be if it could be proven that they knowingly transferred custody to someone for abusive purposes.

The funny thing is, if you could pay someone to adopt a child, that would likely decrease the abortion rate–yet, the State will not permit it, because it would be “trafficking” in humans.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: