TO BE JUST

law must ALWAYS be defensive!

Reign of Injustice by Wes Alexander

Back to Home Page

Not Yours
To Give Away


The Law

Zero Checks
Zero Balances


Anatomy Of
The State


Instability Of
The State


What is Just Law?
Recognizing
Legal Plunder


The Reluctant
Anarchist


The Fed and
Your Declining
Purchasing Power


To Create a
Better Society
You Have to
Break a Few Eggs


Economic Lessons
The Last 30 Years


Mutual
Accommodation



Wes Alexander's
Free Thinking
Web Site



 

 

    The past cannot be changed. Tomorrow will be determined by our action or inaction. There are only two reasons not to oppose evil. The first is we benefit from it. The second is we may not recognize it.

    Pay no tribute to politicians, their governments, or their pronouncements; for they do nothing but exploit our desires for morality, justice, and love. These three alone deserve our honor and respect; not a government of men.

    -- 12/05/04

The February 24th Paul Craig Roberts article Order Without Law is unbelievable, shocking, and sad; all at the same time. It reminds me of the feeling one gets just before the car in the rear view mirror slams into the back of your vehicle.

Perhaps the injustice he chronicles is simply evidence of approaching violence. Order Without Law crystallizes the point that governments are nothing more than unlimited sophisticated criminal gangs. The deadly force you and I can bring to bear on a given situation is rightly limited to defensive purposes. Government deadly force is unrestrained. It is instead a monopoly of violence with final say over all transactions public and private. This monopoly is what leads governments to injustice or evil.

A limited government would have to rely on voluntary association and peaceful persuasion. These are the tools of justice you and I must use when dealing with our families, neighbors, and associates. Look at government actions and ask yourself; can I, as a private citizen, take these same actions? Ask yourself what type of person would even want to act in this fashion. I submit that most people would consider the actions below dishonest and immoral.

Injustice and immorality at the CITY/COUNTY level:

  • County commissioners condemn private property and use other people's money to pay for it. Using the threat of force to make somebody sell you something is wrong. We would not tolerate such anti-social behavior from our 4 year old. SEE: What's Next for Deshong and Deshong Condemnation.

  • Cities and counties use public money to fund and operate businesses that compete with private businesses. Their very existence distorts free-market pricing power. Examples in metropolitan Atlanta are stadiums, convention centers, Underground Atlanta, seasonal ice rinks, camp grounds, hotels and amusement concessions associated with state parks, expenses associated with lobbying on behalf of large local businesses, owning airports, bus services, garbage services, and the list goes on and on.

  • City and county police departments are moving toward criminalization of accidents. They learned this distortion of the law from the Feds. SEE: Respectable Law.

  • City and county police departments are murdering innocent people and stealing private property as they fight the Drug War. SEE: Whacko RICO and A Man's Castle?.

  • City and county police officers accidentally kill and maim without criminal liability, while private citizens are held to higher standards. Justice and double standards contradict one another. SEE: Respectable Law and Police Chase.

  • Private property is subordinated to the county! This subordination includes our bodies, labor, and minds. SEE: Gwinnett County Smoking Ban.

Injustice and immorality at the STATE level:

  • Georgia government destroys private property that competes with its gambling monopoly. Government should be protecting us from monopolies, not creating them! SEE: Gambling Hypocrisy and Video Poker.

  • State representatives believe people who smoke, should pay higher taxes. If the game is "punish evil doers," elected officials and bureaucrats should pay higher taxes. SEE: The Bad Boyz of Georgia.

  • State representatives believe polluters should receive tax breaks to clean up their property. People that pollute their minds, bodies, or property should pay for their own screw ups. Why does the state make me pay for stupidity that does not belong to me? SEE: Improper Laws.

  • Elected officials believe consumers should be forced to pay higher prices. SEE: Demanding More From Government.

  • South Carolina officials use the law to thwart free market competition. SEE: Statute Threatens Gas Business.

Injustice and immorality at the NATIONAL level:

Instead of giving governments what they deserve, which is loathing, contempt, scorn, and utter disdain; we pay them tribute and sing their praises. Most government officials and employees believe they are our protectors; and most people agree with them! Har-de-har-har!!!!!

I do not understand why so many honorable and righteous people believe government is competent at any level. Why do so many of us accept government's immorality and deadly behavior, yet abhor the evil perpetuated by our peers? Why do we work so hard for moral clarity, strength and excellence in our private lives; yet allow governments to lord over us as they steal, lie, and murder in our name?

We have prostituted our souls to greed and political correctness. The truth is: governments excel at death, destruction, and poverty. Everything else they do can be done better by the free market. This includes roads, police protection, courts, and defense. Check out the excerpts below. They were written in 1969 by Roy A. Childs in a letter to Ayn Rand. The letter is called, Objectivism and the State; An Open Letter to Ayn Rand.


There is a battle shaping up in the world - a battle between the forces of archy - of statism, of political rule and authority - and its only alternative - anarchy, the absence of political rule. This battle is the necessary and logical consequence of the battle between individualism and collectivism, between liberty and the state, between freedom and slavery.

It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone; that a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government; that the very concept of limited government is an unsuccessful attempt to integrate two mutually contradictory elements: statism and voluntarism.

It is important to remember that statism exists whenever there is a government which initiates force.

(SOME PEOPLE SAY.....) If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door, etc.

One could just as easily assert that if "society" provided no organized way of raising food, it would compel every citizen to go out and raise vegetables in his own backyard, or to starve. This is illogical. The alternative is most emphatically not either we have a single, monopolistic governmental food-growing program or we have each man growing his own food, or starving. There is such a thing as the division of labor, the free market - and that can provide all the food man needs. So too with protection against aggression.

(SOME PEOPLE SAY.....) The use of physical force - even its retaliatory use - cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens.

Man's mind - which means: the mind of the individual human being - is capable of knowing reality, and man is capable of coming to conclusions on the basis of his rational judgment and acting on the basis of his rational self-interest. You imply that if an individual decides to use retaliation, that that decision is somehow subjective and arbitrary. Rather, supposedly the individual should leave such a decision up to government which is - what? Collective and therefore objective? This is illogical. If man is not capable of making these decisions, then he isn't capable of making them, and no government made up of men is capable of making them, either. By what epistemological criterion is an individual's action classified as "arbitrary," while that of a group of individuals is somehow "objective"?

Rather, I assert that an individual must judge, and evaluate the facts of reality in accordance with logic and by the standard of his own rational self-interest. Are you here claiming that man's mind is not capable of knowing reality? That men must not judge, or act on the basis of their rational self-interest and perception of the facts of reality?

I am not, of course, claiming that a man must always personally use retaliation against those who initiate such against him - he has the right, though not the obligation, to delegate that right to any legitimate agency.

(SOME PEOPLE SAY.....) The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures.

There is indeed a need for such objective rules. But look at the problem this way: there is also a need for objective rules in order to produce a ton of steel, an automobile, an acre of wheat. Must these activities, too, therefore be made into a coercive monopoly? I think not. By what twist of logic are you suggesting that a free market would not be able to provide such objective rules, while a coercive government would? It seems obvious that man needs objective rules in every activity of his life, not merely in relation to the use of retaliation. But, strange as it may seem, the free market is capable of providing such rules. You are, it seems to me, blithely assuming that free market agencies would not have objective rules.

(SOME PEOPLE SAY.....) All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): Men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.

This is not, properly speaking, an objection to anarchism. The answer to this problem of "objective laws" is quite easy: all that would be forbidden in any voluntary society would be the initiation of physical force, or the gaining of a value by any substitute thereof, such as fraud. If a person chooses to initiate force in order to gain a value, then by his act of aggression, he creates a debt which he must repay to the victim, plus damages. There is nothing particularly difficult about this, and no reason why the free market could not evolve institutions around this concept of justice.

The theory which we advocate is not called "competing governments," of course, since a government is a coercive monopoly. We advocate competing agencies of protection, defense, and retaliation; in short, we claim that the free market can supply all of man's needs - including the protection and defense of his values. We most emphatically do not accept the basic premise of modern statists, and do not confuse force and production. We merely recognize protection, defense and retaliation for what they are: namely, scarce services which, because they are scarce, can be offered on a market at a price. We see it as immoral to initiate force against another to prevent him from patronizing his own court system, etc.

Since we understand the nature of government, we advocate no such thing as competing governments; rather, we advocate the destruction or abolition of the state, which, since it regularly initiates force, is a criminal organization.


A peaceful and prosperous society can exit without government. See Rothbard's For a New Liberty.

Printer Friendly Version




@ 1999-2009 Wes Alexander