1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6013/why-im-a-libertarian-or-why-libertarianism-is-beautiful/

Why I’m a Libertarian — or, Why Libertarianism is Beautiful

December 12, 2006 by

In a recent email, Walter Block wrote, responding some pessimistic comments I had about our libertarian movement:

“Dear Stephan: I never feel like dropping out. Never. No matter what. To me, libertarianism is a most beautiful thing, right up there with Mozart and Bach. Illegitimi non carborundum.

I replied with some comments, and Walter encouraged me to post them, so here they are, lightly edited:

Walter’s email got me to thinking about why I’m a libertarian–why libertarians are libertarian. What is it about us that drives us, that makes us passionate advocates of it, and intensely interested in it? Some of us have been self-indulgent enough to write up how we became libertarians (e.g., my How I Became A Libertarian); but I don’t mean exactly that. I mean what is it about it that you love; that drives you; that attracts you?

Walter’s comment that libertarianism is beautiful struck a chord with me; I think I’d never thought of it that way before. It seemed just, and fair, and right, but beautiful–? but then, justice, and rightness, and fairness, and goodness are beautiful.

I think I’m a libertarian because for some reason I hate injustice; I hate bullies; I hate inconsistency; I love fairness and logical consistency and treating people correctly. I like answering the question asked, and not dodging issues: if someone asks how should this person be treated, I try to answer that question, rather than advert to some Marxian notion of utopia.

I like the ruthless logic of libertarianism and its unflinching honesty: how we are unafraid to say that people have a right to be greedy, or selfish, or rich, or not to hire people because of their race–because it is their property. I like the in-your-faceness of it … when it is simply a matter of venting or justice to hurl in the face of a soma-ridden mainstreamer the solid, bracing truth about things, even if it will do no good. I like libertarianism–I love libertarianism–because I think it is the outcome of goodness applied to human interaction. I do agree that libertarianism is beautiful. It is refreshing and cleansing to know that I am willing to respect the rights of all who will respect mine; and to take the responsibility to earn my own way, and to pay for my own mistakes–and the right to profit from my successes. I am a libertarian because it is obviously good, and I would rather be good than evil; and the more good, the better.

***

Thoughts of others on your reasons for why you’re a libertarian are welcome in the comments.

{ 118 comments }

Björn Lundahl December 19, 2006 at 2:14 am

David White

Yes, the fight for liberty is an international struggle.

A change in policy in the US would also influence the whole world.

Take for instance the great influence which the quasi libertarian Milton Friedman had. He influenced Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and later on in time, the whole world.

In Sweden we had some deregulations during the 90s.

Sweden, 1990s:

“Economic reforms were enacted, including voucher schools, liberalized markets for telecommunications and energy as well as the privatization of publicly owned companies, privatization of health care, contributing to liberalizing the Swedish economy. Arguably, the subsequent budget cut-backs with the Social Democrates, and after 1994, continued spending cuts by the Social Democratic governement, did more to reform the Swedish economy and the Swedish model, than Bildt’s governments programme as such.”

http://www.answers.com/carl+bildt?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3

Björn Lundahl

David White December 19, 2006 at 7:49 am

Bjorn,

What seems apparent to me, however, is that as the East has opened up its economies, the West overall has settled into the very fiat-fed welfarism against which Alan Greenspan, when he was a man of principle, so eloquently warned against — http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Greenspan.html

The result, when coupled with the US’s out-of-control warfare state, is a global financial system teetering on the brink, as centralized, fraction-reserve banking has doomed the world to pay the awful price for this, the most massive fraud in human history.

And I fear that as a consequence of this and the immigration problem, the US is lurching headlong toward the creation of an EU-style superstate in the form of the already proposed North American Union under the auspices of the secretive but enormously powerful Council on Foreign Relations — http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102 — including replacement of the collapsing dollar with an euro-like “amero” — http://www.amerocurrency.com

This will be a disaster for freedom, of course, but as our dance of death with China plays itself out — i.e., as this addict-pusher relationship inevitably ends amid a collapsing bond market — the US will seek to stave off a hyperinflationary depression by essentially naturalizing 90 million Mexicans in a desperate effort to replace the cheap labor from Asia, which will in turn have turned inward.

Indeed, we can expect to see a globalization (make that “dollarization”) blowback in the form of regional trading blocs — European, Asian, North American, South American — that will then coalesce into the single-currency world state that has long been the banksters dream, with even more dire consequences for the cause of freedom.

What can possibly counter this ugly and terrifying prospect?

I look to Times’ “Person of the Year” — i.e., each and every one of us exercising our democratic rights through the digital dynamism of the World Wide Web, making it the most important issue we now face — http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html

Sam December 19, 2006 at 7:55 am

To David White:

What exactly is the big deal with a global unified marketplace? Wouldn’t the world using ‘Libertarian recommended’ pure gold currency be exactly the same thing? I would think that when the whole world becomes trade-interdependent then war would become impossible destructive to bother waging.

David White December 19, 2006 at 9:17 am

Sam:

There’s nothing at all wrong with “a global unified marketplace,” as long as it isn’t unified — i.e., corrupted — with fiat money, the question being how to transition out of the present system into a sound money system.

Fortunately, that is a work in progress, based on this concept — http://www.cipe.org/publications/ert/e32/e32_2.pdf — empowered by a next-generation Web — http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0689.html — that will hopefully outpace the state’s attempts to control it.

Björn Lundahl December 19, 2006 at 1:59 pm

The Emperor’s New Clothes

People are led to believe that trade restrictions between regions or countries “create jobs at home”, which they certainly do not. If people had the opposite belief that “free trade” between regions or countries “creates jobs at home”, that would also be an incorrect belief. Trade restrictions or free trade does not cause unemployment or cause employment in a region or country. Trade restrictions only lower the standard of living, hamper competition and restrict liberty. If for instance, the EU imposes tariffs on Chinese textiles, the Euro will appreciate against the Chinese Yuan (the value of the Euro will increase relatively to the Chinese Yuan). This depreciation (decrease in value) of the Chinese Yuan against the Euro, in this example, is caused by a smaller demand for Chinese textiles and therefore a smaller demand for Europeans to buy the Chinese Yuan. Because of this change in exchange rates, prices of goods from the EU to China will be generally higher and prices of goods from China will be generally lower (apart from textiles). As you can imagine, this will increase employment in the European textile sector, but decrease employment in other sectors. At the whole, unemployment will not change but trade between the regions will be lower. Specialization, competition and living standards in the EU region will be hampered. The tariffs will only serve special interest that is the textile manufacturers and their employees. Surely, we want our representatives to serve the common good and the common man and not special interests!

Someone might complain that the Chinese are intervening in the exchange markets to keep their currency artificially low and that they are not letting market forces to appreciate their currency, and therefore my statement about free trade, in this case, is not applicable. Free trade, someone might think, is presupposed by freely fluctuating currencies with no Government intervention (also called clean floating exchange rates). Certainly I do not want Governments to intervene in exchange markets, but actually it is the Chinese that are in this case the losers and we are the winners. We should be glad that China is suppressing the rise of its currency, and the Chinese people should be mad about it. When market prices indicate that, for example, a project is unprofitable; investors naturally stop investing in such a project. Otherwise, factors of production such as land, capital, and labour would be wasted. Every government manipulation of market prices is a step toward economic breakdown and chaos. Land, capital, and labour that are invested in the exporting business in China because of a suppressed currency, have changed the economic structure in China and are mal investments, unprofitable for the nation to undertake, and we are getting something free. We don’t need to export anything to pay for this “extra importation of Chinese products”. To make my statement more obvious, we could consider that if the Chinese currency would be suppressed to no value at all (which would not be possible to realize), the Chinese would be working for nothing and we would get goods and services from China for free (which is, naturally unprofitable for China to undertake), then the market forces in the EU (if market forces would not be hindered by Governments) would reallocate land, capital and labour for other uses and to those fields which the Chinese are not able to compete (even if the Chinese were working and exporting to full capacity, that will not, by far, be enough to satisfy all our wants, in other words, their GNP is by far, too small). The increases in production which mentioned reallocation of recourses leads to are our extra bonus. We should applaud this and the Chinese people should revolt!

If you want to know more about floating exchange rates, go to; http://www.hooverdigest.org/974/friedman.html

Productivity and trade will flourish more intensively with one currency* than with several different currencies, and even with one currency, market forces will smoothen out any imbalances between regions, cities or countries. We do not worry, for example, about the balance of payments between London and Manchester, Berlin and Munich, Paris and Bordeaux or Stockholm and Göteborg etc. If, for example, London exports more to Manchester than Manchester exports to London, the demand for goods and services will be greater in London relatively to their supply, and also relatively to the situation in Manchester. Because of this, prices will go up in London and therefore will exports from London to Manchester contract, as well as, imports from Manchester to London will expand. This happens all the time and we do not even know about it and therefore do not worry about it. Governments do create problems all the time.

If we really want increased competition, why not adopt free trade between nations. Why does the EU and the USA not follow that path? The reason is that they do not want increased competition.

For an example, I quote from answers.com;

“In the United States, the decade from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s saw import quotas placed on textiles, agricultural products, automobiles, sugar, beef, bananas, and even underwear—among other things. In a single session of Congress in 1985, more than three hundred protectionist bills were introduced as U.S. industries began voicing concern over foreign competition”.
Go to;
http://www.answers.com/import+quotas?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3

Only Governments can be so silly to reject great offers and bargains. Individuals doing the same thing would be considered mad.

The essence with above statement is that Governments hinders competition, lower our standard of living, promote special interests and they make excuses for this with faulty theories and propaganda.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden

* A gold standard. See also “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” by Murray N. Rothbard.
http://mises.org/money.asp

David White December 19, 2006 at 3:05 pm

Bjorn,

Thanks for the all-important asterisk, since even a lone fiat currency would still by definition be credit-based and thus inherently inflationary, robbing the people accordingly, while there can be no inflation with a metal-backed, 100% reserve monetary system.

And just as importantly, neither can there be mega-states built on the monetary fraud that is centralized, fractional-reserve banking.

Björn Lundahl December 19, 2006 at 4:13 pm

David White

Yes, I agree with you on that too!

I voted also against the EU. It is a mega-state.

It is a silly thing to believe that you need a mega-state to promote trade. A mega-state has more power to regulate than a small state. Please, see my next post.

Björn Lundahl

Björn Lundahl December 19, 2006 at 4:40 pm

The EU hinders companies to compete!

When companies compete in separate markets, different competitive measures are often taken by companies in those markets. People in those markets, because of culture, values goods and services differently and are willing to pay for goods and services in accordance with those values. For instance, in Italy, people are very willing to buy cheap cars made by the Italian car manufacturer “Fiat”. Volkswagen, decided to sell their cars in Italy to Italians for lower prices. Volkswagen, thought, that these measures were needed in that market to compete effectively. People from Austria and Germany went to Italy in search for bargains “offered by Volkswagen”. Volkswagen dealers said no. Low prices are only offered to Italian customers! For these “crimes” The European Union’s High Court upheld a $110.5 million fine for Volkswagen. This happened in 1998. Now, Volkswagen and other companies must have same prices in all markets to all people, otherwise they risk to get heavily punished. In other words, if people are willing to cross borders in search for bargains, it is better for a company like Volkswagen, to raise its prices* in Italy and lose market share. Apart from Volkswagen, the Italians will suffer. Alternatively, they could have the same low prices in all markets, but that might not be profitable or even lead to bankruptcy. In the very end, competition is hindered! This is only an example of Government in action and what it actually does “to promote competition”.

For more information about this case, go to;

http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=09220316204320

And to;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/821620.stm

For some further information, go to;

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_19/b3782014.htm

The flexibility of the market is needed.
Different situations in diverse markets need different actions, but Government agencies are guided by rigid rules. Governments do not know how to run an economy, they lack the essential tools; the free market. The more Governments intervene in the economy, the more chaotic will the economy be. Governments decision making is relied upon whims by the electorate, markets, on the other hand, are relied upon prices of supply and demand; recourses are allocated to those ends which are valued most highly by consumers. When mentioned destructive actions bloom, like in the former Soviet Union, the “destructiveness is revealed”. In the case I have mentioned, consumers have not gained anything if Volkswagen raised their prices in Italy because of this verdict. Rigid rules can lead to situations like that. Governments do not know the different circumstances that exist in diverse markets, to apply the same rigid rules in all markets do not gain anybody.

For example, in Sweden car manufacturers guarantee car bodies against corrosion for 6-12 years. Swedish consumers demand this, probably because of our climate. I do not actually know, but I do not think that the same manufacturers offer the same guarantees all over the world.

Naturally, weak companies that do not serve the consumers well will try out every possible way to use those laws to protect them against competition. As the anti trust authorities do not, as mentioned, know all different circumstances, their verdicts will probably be wrong.

If we really want increased competition, why not adopt free trade between nations. Why does the EU and the USA not follow that path? The reason is that they do not want increased competition.

For an example, I quote from answers.com;

“In the United States, the decade from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s saw import quotas placed on textiles, agricultural products, automobiles, sugar, beef, bananas, and even underwear—among other things. In a single session of Congress in 1985, more than three hundred protectionist bills were introduced as U.S. industries began voicing concern over foreign competition”.

Go to;

http://www.answers.com/import+quotas?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3

*From the book “Antitrust The Case for Repeal”, by Dominick.T. Armentano, page 18:

“Governments antitrust suits against firms that price discriminate almost always result in the defendant firm raising some of its prices to comply with the law.”

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden

Daniel Coleman December 19, 2006 at 5:03 pm

My goodness, who let Björn Lundahl out of his cage in this comment thread?

Thanks for these posts, Björn. I especially appreciated your defense of Rothbard on ‘natural rights.’ As someone who reads quite a bit of both Thomas Aquinas and Murray Rothbard, I lean toward the belief that the Rothbard-Hoppe defense of natural rights is quite compatible with Thomism. (I can’t speak too much to Locke and the other ‘natural rights’ thinkers that Roger M points to).

After all, Aquinas believed that Aristotle’s conception of social ethics were arrived at from sound principles, and Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’ could know nothing outside of itself, let alone be the personal, moral-dictating God that Aquinas believed in!

Björn Lundahl December 19, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Daniel Coleman

Thank you!

Björn

David White December 19, 2006 at 5:47 pm

Daneiel Coleman:

Thus am I able to make the leap from the unconscious unmoved mover that Whitehead called “the primordial nature of God” to the conscious product thereof in what he called “the consequent nature of God” — i.e., a theology of process ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology ) that is fully in keeping both with evolution and with human freedom.

Björn Lundahl December 19, 2006 at 5:52 pm

I was brainwashed by government schools!

In the very early 80s I adored Milton Friedman and Monetarism. I ordered many books from the Laissez Faire books store in New York (which I also visited in 1989).

I received a flyer from the store and saw the book For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard, and read some information about it. Then I ordered it. When I had received and read it, a new world had appeared for me.

It is not an easy task to become a libertarian in a country like Sweden. One of the subjects in school was called “Samhällskunskap” which means “knowledge about society” and you might already guess what that “knowledge” was all about. It was some kind of information about the welfare state, democracy, parliament, “social problems” etc. In the end of the schoolbook also called “Samhällskunskap” there was a chapter about the USA and a chapter about the Soviet Union. Actually, I was quite good in that subject!

Our television was controlled by the government and in the late 60s we had two channels (TV 1 & TV 2). I learned a lot and I am still learning a lot about societal problems through public broadcasting (joke).

During the 80s the government was more and more unable to completely control the television, because of competition from cable TV networks. Before every Swedish guy bought a parabola antenna the government was very quick to allow a commercial TV station and a channel (TV 4). The government regulated the channel through a “contract” which expires, I believe, after something like 5 years. This so called contract or lease regulates in detail what TV 4 shall be allowed to broadcast. If TV 4 does not meet the government’s criterions the lease will not be extended. So, nowadays, we here in Sweden get taught in “samhällskunskap” also through TV 4´s broadcasting. By allowing TV 4 before the cable network was extended, TV 4 grew large and could reap most of the incomes from commercials and gain a large market share, and in that way hinder the development of the cable channels. For the government was unable to regulate the cable stations as they broadcasts from abroad. Quite clever and impressive! Still, the market broke the monopoly power of the government and we have, nowadays a lot of cable channels to choose from.

Well, in this environment it is quite difficult and hard to learn and comprehend libertarianism. There is always a psychological barrier to conquer, the barrier which I was brought up with. Later on in life, it was nearly impossible to understand that it was, for example, not the market but the government that was the very cause of the business cycles. I was always taught the opposite! I just couldn’t believe it!
Milton Friedman was easier to understand, because he blamed the Federal Reserve for not “doing their job properly” during the depression, but if his monetary “theory” was correct it was, really, the market that was to blame for the great depression as there was a need for a Federal Reserve “doing its job properly” in the first place.

Well, at last, I broke all the barriers and this because of an intellectual giant called Murray Rothbard.

http://www.answers.com/topic/laissez-faire-books

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Björn Lundahl December 20, 2006 at 6:14 am

Still, capitalism does exist in Sweden!

In Sweden we have a Capitalist which might be richer than Bill Gates!

Ingvar Kamprad, an industrialist from Sweden, he founded IKEA, the home furnishing retail chain, which sell low priced furniture’s all over the world (235 stores in 33 countries). His business idea was: “We shall offer a wide range of well-designed, functional home furnishing products at prices so low that as many people as possible will be able to afford them.”

Go to;
http://www.answers.com/topic/ingvar-kamprad

And to;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA

Photo on a “typical store”, go to;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:VillepinteFrance.JPG

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Björn Lundahl December 28, 2006 at 3:11 pm

Mark Humphrey

Mark Humphrey “I don’t want to precipitate trench warfare with devoted Rothbardians, but I strongly suspect that Rothbard owed his insight about “life as the standard of moral value” to Ayn Rand. I can’t prove this, of course. Sadly, in “The Ethics of Liberty”, (published in the early Eighties) Rothbard chose to, in a sense, blacklist Rand by claiming that NO ONE, other than himself, in the libertarian movement was working to develope a system of rationally defensible ethics. (Maybe Rothbard meant “at the moment I am writing this statement”.)”

Björn That life is an axiomatic value and functions “as the standard of moral value” in an ethical system, Rothbard could, alternatively for example, have gotten this insight from Mises himself through analyzing his statement in his book, “Human Action”, page 11:

“We may say that action is the manifestation of a man’s will.”

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp

I am not saying that Rothbard did get his insight from Mises; I am only saying that it was possible. Surely, many other possibilities exist which we do not know anything about.

Mark Humphrey “It has been awhile since I’ve read Hoppe, and Rothbard; but I suspect Hoppe’s reasoning goes: either we all own ourselves, or everyone owns everyone else. Since the first proposition is clearly more defensible than the latter absurd proposition, one can affirm self ownership as valid. But if this is the argument, it fails. For that argument assumes that which it sets out to prove, namely that an ethical concept, “ownership”, exists. But on this basis, ownership remains unproven, so that one could just as well assert: “no one owns anything, and anything goes.””

Björn Self-ownership is a natural fact, since a man in his very nature controls his own mind and body (natural disposition), that is, he is a natural self-owner of his own will and person (having a free will) and if this was not true, neither could he effectively control any property and, therefore, not own it. In other words; “nothing could control and own something”.

Naturally, praxeology the science of human action, by itself logically confirms the natural fact of self-ownership, since praxeology is based upon “the acting man consciously intending to improve his own satisfaction” and I quote from answers.com:

“From praxeology Mises derived the idea that every conscious action is intended to improve a person’s satisfaction. He was careful to stress that praxeology is not concerned with the individual’s definition of end satisfaction, just the way he sought that satisfaction. The way in which a person will increase his satisfaction is by removing a source of dissatisfaction. As the future is uncertain so every action is speculative.

An acting man is defined as one capable of logical thought — to be otherwise would be to make one a mere creature who simply reacts to stimuli by instinct. Similarly an acting man must have a source of dissatisfaction which he believes capable of removing, otherwise he cannot act.
Another conclusion that Mises reached was that decisions are made on an ordinal basis. That is, it is impossible to carry out more than one action at once, the conscious mind being only capable of one decision at a time — even if those decisions can be made in rapid order. Thus man will act to remove the most pressing source of dissatisfaction first and then move to the next most pressing source of dissatisfaction.

As a person satisfies his first most important goal and after that his second most important goal then his second most important goal is always less important than his first most important goal. Thus, for every further goal reached, his satisfaction, or utility, is lessened from the preceding goal. This is the rule of diminishing marginal utility.

In human society many actions will be trading activities where one person regards a possession of another person as more desirable than one of his own possessions, and the other person has a similar higher regard for his colleague’s possession than he does for his own. This subject of praxeology is known as catallactics, and is the more commonly accepted realm of economics.”
http://www.answers.com/Praxeology?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Further:

The Ethics of Liberty, page 45:

Footnote:

“[1]Professor George Mavrodes, of the department of philosophy of the University of Michigan, objects that there is another logical alternative: namely, “that no one owns anybody, either himself or anyone else, nor any share of anybody.” However, since ownership signifies range of control, this would mean that no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly vanish.”

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eight.asp

Or in my own words from the essay “Normative principles”:

“Why must anybody own anything?

In accordance with our objective test to find out if something is a condition for something else, we grasp a state of things where the following principle is none existent anywhere and at all:

“Everybody owns themselves and their Justly owned property rights”.

Nobody would be able to do anything, since nobody has the right to control anything. Not even themselves (see below about property rights in your own person).

This question is not only a contradiction it is also silly. You ask a question which means that you control yourselves (natural disposition), that is owning yourself (see below the excellent writing of Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The other contradiction is that if nobody would own anything, nobody would be able to hinder anyone to own anything either since they would otherwise have an invalid control (having the disposition to) of everyone else, that is having an invalid ownership to everybody else (see below about valid property rights in your own person).

Ownership itself is, therefore, an objective condition for the preservation of human life.”

http://normativeprinciples.blogspot.com/2006/12/normative-principles-pure-free-market_10.html

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Joe M. March 11, 2007 at 7:26 pm

As Hazlitt says in Man Vs. The Welfare State, if resources were infinite, we would need no concept of property rights, but because resources are NOT infinite, we need a rational, civillized means for the exchange and care of these resources, hence, private property rights. (I’m paraphrasing here, of course.)

JM

Independent Womens Forum

Björn Lundahl May 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm

The murderer is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.

You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to abandon my rules? If you do not like this dimension you can pass away from it any time you want. No one is forcing you to stay.

With the help of reason, consciousness and intelligence, you can observe that your fellow men strive to sustain their lives. They do what their nature calls them to do, namely to live. You are a threat against that! You are a threat against this dimension! This dimension would not exist if it couldn’t cope with what is threatening it. You wouldn’t have lived if murdering has been allowed, and despite of this fact, you place yourself above the very cause of your own life. How can you place yourself above the very cause of your existence!?

No organism or life can exist if it is not accommodated to what life demands, and that is partly to eliminate the very things that can cause that life ceases. It is the self-preservation that is the very cause for me to throw out the murderer from my kingdom. You never learn! You are parasites of life! You are saying that you did not choose life because you didn’t create yourself, but no one has, for all men are participants of an eternal process and this fact does not declare your irresponsibility.

The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the murderer’s actions shall be rejected and punished until such destructive threats ceases to exist.

My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.

With a good conscience I will now consider if you also shall be thrown out from my dimension and return to the unconsciousness. If I judge to not throw you out, I will do it with a bad conscience since I have the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules which I then will have denied.

Björn Lundahl

Björn Lundahl May 8, 2007 at 1:59 pm

The thief is sentenced guilty before the nature of life.

Men visit my kingdom for a time and then later leave it. I observe this species that with its reason, consciousness and intelligence protects her values and purposes. They cultivates harvest where the wind blow the very least, they build greenhouses to protect the harvest against frigidity; they spray the harvest to protect it from insects. With their reason, consciousness and intelligence some men observe that the harvest can be stolen and out of this reason men defends their harvest with the might of weaponry, for the self-preservation and man’s purposes are then protected.

You can steal due to the fact that man to some extent succeeded to keep down the theft and you can live because man has to some extent succeeded to suppress the theft. Human beings became human beings the day they started to create and you belong to this species. You enter the kingdom of life and believe that you stand above its rules and its very foundation. What right gives you the right to ignore my rules? Since childhood you have learnt that theft is wrong and despite of this, you steal. You are a parasite of life, motives and objectives because theft is a parasite of life, motives and objectives! The day man no longer succeeds in her effort to suppress theft, that day motives, objectives and life ceases to exist.

The process in nature that created me, demands that I follow its rules or else the process would never had created me and would never had risen, for it would be doomed to die from the very beginning. It is created in such a way that it avoids death, which is the reason for me having self-preservation, for death I else would not have avoided. My nature is thus such that the thief’s actions must be stopped and punished until they cease to exist.

My lawbook is the existence’s law, life’s law, our kingdom’s law, this dimension’s law or my nature’s law, because I am the nature, a part of cosmos and I must play by its rules for nothing else exists for me.

In the name of true Justice, as it is built upon the insight about this dimension’s utmost playing rules, you will now be sentenced for the crime you have done and for the compensation to the victim and this to its fullest extent.

Björn Lundahl

Scott January 24, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Libertarianism is beautiful,logical and moral.
It’s beautiful because it’s humane,humanistic and because in the best sense we are no harm to anyone.
I feel great pride in being a libertarian because other political ideologies have some inherent contradiction or problem in them and libertarianism lacks this.I love it’s constantly growing and branching out and being used to think about all sorts of problems/issues from unusual ways.I like how it flies in the face of the mainstream political correctness that assumes so much including the virtue of coercion.I like how we can plainly and honestly state before the sun(in the words of emerson) NO! THIS WILL NOT DO!
I have loved liberty for a very long time and if there was ever anything I would wish to dedicate my life to it is ‘Her’.The most precious things are always the things that must be the hardest fought for.Liberty is just one among many of these.One of the highest of all things.
Long may the spark of liberty live in the heart of man.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: