We’re happy you’re here!
If you care about creating a more civilized society or just want to harmonize your political actions with your moral values, you’ve arrived at the right place!
Come in. Let’s talk!
You know yourself. You want to be free. With your freedom, you can pursue happiness, in whatever form that takes, so long as you don’t hurt others.
If you’re like most people, your personal values include the Golden Rule or something very close to it. In other words, you have enough empathy to realize that others want that same freedom to pursue their happiness.
But when you enter politics, whether you’re conservative, progressive, or independent, it’s extremely likely your political actions contradict the Golden Rule! This may be news to you! After all, you’re a decent and smart person. But if you want to harmonize your political actions with your moral values, this site is for you!
We are voluntaryist libertarians. We believe in and promote the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), which says…
Don’t threaten or initiate force.
This means…
- Force must be limited to defensive purposes (such as criminal justice)
- People must be free to follow their conscience, provided they respect the equal rights of others
- There are NO political exceptions: We must NOT ask politicians to initiate force against others, even for “good intentions”
The ZAP is a Silver Rule partner to the Golden Rule
The Golden Rule has many forms, but it basically says, “Treat others as you want to be treated.” However…
This can be difficult in practice. What if others don’t want what you want? So we advocate the Zero Aggression Principle as a Silver Rule…
Don’t hurt others. If you don’t want people to tread on you, don’t tread on them.
This is much easier to do. You already live your life this way, unless you’re a sociopath. You don’t use force to make people obey your preferences, do you? But please notice that politics and “government” operate on the exact opposite principle…
One side, the majority, gangs up on the other side, the minority, to make them do things against their will.
In other words…
We all behave like sociopaths whenever we use politics and government to impose our preferences on others.
We think this political approach to governance is inherently immoral
Political government is violence based. This requires conflict and violation. This destroys human happiness. But…
Political government is also inherently impractical
Any system funded and executed using threats of violence is freed from the need to perform well. This is inherently unpragmatic. It wastes resources and destroys prosperity.
Are there exceptions to the Zero Aggression Principle?
You can explore this question at What do you think?. There you’ll find an interactive polling system that will measure how you, and others, respond to various issues in light of the ZAP and other arguments. Even better…
How do libertarians think? You can find out using our Mental Levers
A lever is a tool that helps you accomplish more with less effort. Libertarians use principles and rules-of thumb as Mental Levers to analyze the world.
Too many people think randomly. With few or no principles to guide them, they have to re-analyze each issue from scratch. This often leads to self-contradiction, or worse…
Chaotic thinking makes people vulnerable to emotional manipulation by political con-men and the ambulance-chasing media. Mental Levers are the cure for this.
By Garry Reed April 2, 2015 - 10:04 am
Help! I desperately want to steer some people to the ZAP website who currently think libertarianism is what they learn from mainstream media and anti-libertarian bashers but almost all of the links in the “Welcome” text on your home page go nowhere! I keep getting Page Not Found! Even the link to the definition of ZAP is dead which really defeats the purpose of sending anyone to your home page. Please notify me as soon as the links are fixed!
By Perry Willis April 12, 2015 - 1:19 pm
Hi Garry. We’re rolling the new site out in stages. All of the links will be active very soon. Thanks for your enthusiasm. The way you have used earlier versions of this site is exactly how we hope others will use it.
By WOWZER June 2, 2015 - 4:30 pm
So at what stage in the roll out will the privacy policy be updated with something other than Lorem ipsum placeholder text? I love the idea, but would be embarrassed to send someone here only to have them see that, nor will I subscribe until you post one.
By Jim Babka June 4, 2015 - 4:24 pm
We understand your concern. It’s on the list of things to do in the near future. But not an easy thing to finish.
By John Alvarado June 14, 2015 - 9:29 pm
Just remove the hyperlinks in the article until the pages are ready, and then add them back in later.. Most of them are really not needed anyway, and having them go to a page-not-found page just comes off as unprofessional or careless.
By Perry Willis June 15, 2015 - 12:03 pm
These pages will be available very soon. Thanks for your comment.
By Andy September 7, 2016 - 9:00 pm
Hi Gary. We’re you on Katherine Albrechts show? Oh, it was Jim. I totally agree with what is being said there. However there are two reasons why someone should become part of a sort of aggression other than self defense. This would be coming to the help of a country that no one else wants to help even so they, as a country would have the capacity to do it.
I think in particular the Kurs who are and always have been a people and no one wants to give them the right to their natural habitat known as Kurdistan. The other is, as a number of war veterans did, when they came to the help of Israel in the War of Independemce. If I had the time and money I would feel honored to be a volunteer for the IDF even if it would be behind the scenes only. I guess this would be called coming to the help of the underdog which in case of Israel misinformed people through the lying news media would see otherwise. But that is on them.
By Joe Cobb September 8, 2016 - 1:12 pm
Of course you are correct, Andy. I am too old but if I were a young man looking for adventure in “a Just Cause,” volunteering to join/help the Kurds defend their homeland is a worthy cause. Israel’s IDF with the volunteers from US veterans was superb. What makes those actions Great Virtue Accomplishments is the detail the acts of valor were performed VOLUNTARILY, and not by government coercion.
When a State “helps” in this manner, it is never voluntary for the taxpayers who never gave any thought to where the collected funds end up. It was not voluntary for those same US volunteers in the 1940s, probably. Love of one’s country and of one’s Just Cause must never be forced, no more than forced religious beliefs.
By Mike R April 8, 2015 - 3:37 pm
I believe that supporting Government at this point… IS supporting Aggression, with 57 percent of the US budget going to Military “Projects”… and another vast chunk going to Corporate Welfare Whores that have ZERO CONSCIENCE…
Show me how a Minarchist System such as Libertarianism can eliminate this MACHINERY of DEATH completely and I’ll take a blood oath to support you.
By Perry Willis April 12, 2015 - 1:18 pm
Hi Mike R. We think any institution that initiates force is NOT a government. The purpose of government requires that force only be used defensively. This is our aim. Our next email message will better describe the type of society we envision once there is a social consensus in favor of Zero Aggression.
By Joe Cobb May 21, 2015 - 6:44 pm
Just to clarify, Perry: I see you have defined “government” as “uses force only defensively.” Thus gangs that carry the flag and exact customs duties at the ports, and send IRS agents around town, are just being called “The City of X” or “The United States of America.” I sympathize with the distinction, but I will stick with the older use of adjectives, calling your government a “legitimate government” and “The United States of America” an illegitimate one, to the degree it uses coercion and threats of aggressive force to manipulate people.
By Perry Willis June 1, 2015 - 12:43 pm
Hi Joe. We don’t expect everyone to adopt our nomenclature. But your last sentence seems right in line with what we’re arguing, so maybe I need some clarification about what your exact take is on this. It’s always good to talk to you.
By Joe Cobb June 1, 2015 - 1:43 pm
My “exact take” is some common words are more “noise” than “denotation” and “government” (meaning our familiar “illegitimate” versions) are what people “grok” when they hear/read the word. Thus the clarification label for what you and I specifically want them to understand should be different, whether with an adjective or a whole new label. We have abandoned “liberal” for this reason, just as the more hard core social democrats are also now preferring “progressive.” Fortunately “Der Staat” and its Nazi connotations will be available for our language as we talk about State Power and Statism.
By Perry Willis June 1, 2015 - 1:45 pm
Hi Joe. I think I understand what you’re saying. It seems in line with what we’re arguing. Legitimate government wouldn’t initiate force. So what we have now is NOT legitimate government. So we call it something else — The State.
By Joe Cobb June 1, 2015 - 1:45 pm
There is also государство (The State in Putin’s language)
By Joe Cobb June 1, 2015 - 1:46 pm
The State in the language of Muhammad: الدولة
By Bob Williams May 7, 2016 - 6:26 pm
A distinction should be made between voluntary governance and government, which is always involuntary. The 1934 Oxford Universal Dictionary recognised this when it defined “terrorism” as “a system . . . of government intimidation”. Rothbard’s early writings did a good job on uncovering the root of government – coercion.
Governance is something I see Old Order Mennonites accomplishing in Shiloh, Ohio when they cooperatively establish and run schools, produce auctions, and gather voluntary collections for healthcare and hospitalisation. Coercion is absent in their governance.
Eschewing “government” for “governance” might make clear the distinction between coercion and cooperation.
By voluntaryist October 26, 2017 - 7:32 pm
I just watched a doc on a Mennonite community in MX. They are vertially free from outside (govt.) coercion. However, it is much less free than life under the US Emipre. The social pressure to maintain their culture is draconian. They may not imprison as in N. Korea but the mental control is exactly as depicted in “Anthem”. It is very sad and scary.
I was interested because of their farming mistakes. They have ruined their soil. The solution to regaining sustainability is easy but I wouldn’t help them stave off economic disaster until they open up their minds. The few who do must leave (escape).
I would like to see a team of psychologists study them to find out how their disfunctional society maintains mass delusion and develop a cure. They are simular to zombies.
By Garry Reed January 4, 2018 - 10:32 am
Virtually everyone who responds to my articles “understand” that the word “government” refers to the political entity that runs our country and our lives. I never attempt to redefine “government” but always explain the libertarian/voluntaryist difference as “we are opposed to “coercive governments” and in favor of “voluntaryist governance” and then sometimes ask a reader to note the critical difference between “governments” and “governance.”
As for minarchists I say that I will agree with their night watchman state only if it is purely defensive, 100% voluntarily funded and never disallows competiion. I don’t mean people “vote” to “voluntarily” fund government, which simply means 51% coercively imposing its will on the other 49%, I mean that every dollar that comes to a defensive/voluntary government has been acquired with no initiation of coercion, intimidation or fraud against any individual or group of individuals whatsoever.
That’s my approach, voluntary governance vs coercive governments.
By voluntaryist January 17, 2019 - 7:08 pm
Your re-defining the word “government” will require changing the minds of about 7 billion people. The word applies to, is commonly accepted by billions for approximately 200 political jurisdictions who use coercive force and thousands of divisions within them. Do you see the problem?
Statists have defined coercive gov to be the only kind with a ZAP gov as anarchy, e.g., destructive chaos. We believe the opposite, but how do we discuss or debate using their contradictory words which have been the norm for over a century?
We came up with “libertarian” and soon it was bastardized, co-opted. Now we have “voluntarist”. How long before it gets re-defined? We are in a war of words, i.e., concepts. Statists have a monopoly on most of the mass media; we have truth, logic, integrity.
I would never assume a well-known statist is mistaken but well-intentioned. For that reason, I wouldn’t preface any rebuttal with “respectfully”. We are in a life-death revolt against myth, superstition, and barbarism. We need courage and intellectual honesty. The fate of humanity is at risk.
By Garry Reed January 20, 2019 - 11:33 am
Not sure if the above comment by “Voluntaryist” was aimed at my previous post but I am not “redefining government,” I am embracing the Zero Aggression Project’s concept of a “post-statist” society to the best of my understanding of it by advocating REPLACING coercive governments with voluntary governance.
By Steve Smith April 12, 2015 - 10:51 am
To Garry Reed’s comment: It appears that this website is being relaunched. Be sure to read Jim Babka’s blog post about something new starting, which he posted just a few days ago. I trust that very soon there will be plenty of good stuff to direct people to. I’m looking forward to seeing what they do with it.
By Penni B April 15, 2015 - 1:36 am
One of the things I hope you will consider is relinking in archive form some of the ‘best of’ Downsize DC Foundation , such as ‘Would Jesus Have Booed the Golden Rule, and ‘State Idolatry and the Mystical View of the State’. I very much miss being able to link to these and other older articles. Thank you.
By Matt April 17, 2015 - 3:17 pm
Thanks for creating this site and also for the DownsizeDC site. The DDC site is such a great tool to get the needed task of writing representatives a quick and easy thing to do.
I have wondered if you are aware of Pete Hendrickson’s book Cracking the Code? The information it contains can be used by each person filing a tax return to reduce the size of government via cutting off their funding. If you have not heard of him, his site is losthorizons.com. Probably the best thing you could do to increase your personal wealth. And do it by fully complying with the tax code which will concurrently make use of the ZAP by default.
By PJ O'Malley April 18, 2015 - 5:16 pm
I’m waaay behind in my reading so just was able to get to your April 13 message. This is exciting!
Not sure if this is the best place to present this, but you had two minor typos that are practically moot becasue of the time lapse, but I offer them anyway. Hope it helps.
http://webmail.q.com/zimbra/h/search?si=24&so=0&sc=662105&st=message&xim=1&action=paneView
“The recognize that it’s silly to disconnect funding from performance”
I believe you mean They recognize . . ., and it looks like a period should follow “performance” Please let me know if there is a better avenue for sharing items like this.
By Jim Babka April 21, 2015 - 1:52 pm
Thanks. Yes, hit reply to any of our emails or send a message to comments@zeroaggressionproject.org
By Shari May 29, 2015 - 9:50 am
I’m glad that this project exists however I’m saddened that it is so needed. I’ve been using these principles for years. As a Christian, I have always been taught and believed that temperance in debate is the way to go. I have been told that I bring common sense into online debates. I always try to diffuse situations because I’m a peace maker at heart. I debate regularly with a young man who is a friend of my son who is an atheist. They are in the Army. He tells me that I am the ONLY “religious” person that he can have a civil debate with. My physical therapist also tells me that I’m the only person he has been able to discuss the differences between his religion, catholicism, and my “religion”, christianity, without getting into a heated argument. That truly amazes me. I have been viciously attacked by others claiming that they too are Christians because I don’t agree with their stance on something. Does not the Bible say that temperance is a fruit of the spirit? I hope that my bringing the religious aspect into this is not unwanted. It’s what guides me in my debates whether it is political or spiritual.
By Perry Willis June 1, 2015 - 12:38 pm
Hi Shari. All comments and views are welcome so long as people are civil. I’m an atheist and my partner Jim Babka is a Christian. We all get along here. Welcome aboard.
By russell stanton January 3, 2018 - 11:33 am
Hi Perry – My name’s Russell (or Rus which rimes with bus) Stanton. Great to see you call yourself an atheist. and now I have to say the word atheist is like the most profound kind of joke to me – maybe because I tend to be more of a literalist. It seems to me that if anyone calls himself an atheist he owes the world a complete book on his personal meaning of atheism. No time to say much more except that I really like 2 things I’ve heard from UU ministers on the subject. One said “Tell me about the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in that one either.” The other said he had a plaque on his desk reading, “Maybe God wanted me to be an atheist.” I am very much a non Bible believer, as I certainly don’t fit the denotation of the word atheist. and like to say I mostly agree with the teachings of Christ, but not many of the teachings about Christ. I suppose for normal people, saying that you are an atheist is nice and easy for them to think they can understand, but just wanted to warn you that there may be others like me haha.
By Perry Willis January 3, 2018 - 4:26 pm
Hi Rus. Words are tricky things, and what people do with words is even trickier. Some people like the word agnostic because of the issues you raise.
I could certainly be an agnostic because I don’t REALLY know one way or another, but then neither do you. But you still choose to call yourself a theist because you believe there’s a god (even though you don’t REALLY know for sure either). I believe the opposite, that there probably is no god. Surely that position deserves a word to describe it, and if theism is the right word for a theist then atheism seems like the correct word for someone without belief. Indeed, most people are atheists when it comes to most depictions of god, but all theists believe in at least one such depiction while atheists believe in none.
By voluntaryist January 3, 2018 - 6:49 pm
I refuse to engage in a discussion about “god” until we can agree on a definition. To do so is irrational because it makes honest communication impossible. Also, I refuse to be held responsible for explaining another’s failure to communicate his concepts. I am not a mind reader, nor do I bear any guilt for not being one. The onus of responsibility is on the one who introduces a concept. I will do my best to understand, asking questions, over and over, to clear up contradictions, but no one is capable of establishing communication alone. It is a two-way street. I am content to do my best to help another explain their ideas, but should that person fail to do so, I will not share responsibility for their failure. I accept responsibility for explaining my ideas, and mine alone.
The word “atheist” assumes the word “god” has meaning. I did not fully understand what people meant by that word when I was 8 and I still don’t at 75. The meaning seems to vary from person to person with each one claiming to know better than the other. I find no definitions rational. How can I talk about a concept I can’t understand? I’m still waiting, still questioning, still demanding the word “god” be defined. Note: a contradictory definition is an oxymoron, i.e., no definition.
By Jeffrey TG June 1, 2015 - 2:02 pm
What makes this website valuable? Voluntarists will already agree with everything here and statists will be put off by how freedom-oriented it is.
By Perry Willis June 1, 2015 - 2:24 pm
Hi Jeffrey. Thanks for the question. There are a couple of different answers. First…
1 in 5 Americans self-identify as libertarians, but are not active promoting the philosophy. We think this site will help us discover, recruit, and activate some of those people. Second…
Some people can be persuaded to move in our direction. In fact, that’s already happening here on our first day of business. If you click on “What Do You Think?” in the banner and go down and click on the drug prohibition link, you’ll be able to see a report of this movement in the right-hand column.
By Dave Ferguson June 11, 2015 - 8:59 am
I am a former professor of economics. Many of the arguments in favor of coercive government spring from utilitarian analysis of costs and benefits. I have an overwhelmingly ignored blog that presents economics in a non-utilitarian context that might be interesting to some of your readers. http://political-economists.blogspot.com.
By heisendude June 11, 2015 - 5:22 pm
I appreciate and fully support what you are doing here. I am curious though as to why you use the term zero aggression principle instead of non aggression principle? (I personally think ZAP has more audio appeal than NAP.)
Either way, I think that in order for us to promote this philosophy we need to have a consensus as to what we should call ourselves:zapists, zapians, zapers, (long A vowel sound or short?) or any other suggestions. I am partial to zapian myself.
Thoughts everyone?
By Perry Willis June 13, 2015 - 2:16 pm
You answered your own question. We chose Zero Aggression Principle because ZAP is a better acronym than NAP.
As for what we should call ourselves — we like the term Voluntaryist, but will answer to the libertarian label too. But if you’re looking for something that incorporates the Zero Aggression idea then how about zero aggressionists?
By Ron Cadby June 19, 2015 - 10:09 am
‘ZAP’ is excellent. ZAPIT, ZAPPIT, ZAPPER and more can be coined contextually quite well. Keep on ZAPPING, Perry.
By Perry Willis June 19, 2015 - 11:14 am
Thanks Ron. Credit for the ZAP acronym goes to L. Neil Smith. We think it’s a big improvement over the old NAP, non-aggression principle. ZAP The State and have a nice day.
By Garry Reed June 13, 2015 - 3:20 pm
AHA … As for me I’ll be trekking along the Zappian Way!
By Perry Willis June 13, 2015 - 4:52 pm
That’s funny Garry!
By Joe Cobb June 13, 2015 - 11:47 pm
For people like me who subscribe and get a separate emailed notice when comments are entered by my new friends here, I am asking Perry Willis if the blog can be sequenced from newest top level comment to oldest, instead of beginning with April 2 and requiring scrolling to the near-end. I can click on my email and it jumps me here, but not to the newest, which my facebook jump will automatically do for me. Just a semi-technical feedback from a satisfied user. I also added some emotional enthusiasm when I found out that I really responded to the “ZERO” instead of “Non-” so I have increased my monthly support.
By Perry Willis June 14, 2015 - 12:52 pm
I’ve been thinking the same thing Joe. I will inquire about making that change.
By Joe Cobb July 14, 2015 - 9:28 pm
Any progress on the resequencing of your blog text messages with newest topics first?
By Perry Willis July 20, 2015 - 1:11 pm
Sorry for the slow reply Joe. Launching the site gave us a real world market test. And that has resulted in a long list of things to improve. Alas, adding additional functionality to the blog IS on the list, but a bit far down it at the moment. We’re working toward it as fast as we can.
By Bill Lambert June 14, 2015 - 10:25 am
It would be nice to see a short essay on the history of the zero aggression principle.
L. Neil Smith has some nice words about it at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2015/tle825-20150614-06.html .
By Perry Willis June 14, 2015 - 12:57 pm
You’re quite right Bill Lambert. We were persuaded by L. Neil Smith’s arguments for the term Zero Aggression. We need to acknowledge that and will do so shortly. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
By Perry Willis June 14, 2015 - 1:25 pm
BTW Bill Lambert, we gave L. Neil Smith prominent credit when we first announced our plans for the Zero Aggression Project. You can read what we wrote here (it’s about halfway down the article): https://downsizedc.org/blog/will-you-be-a-founder-of-the-zero-aggression-project
By Joe Cobb June 14, 2015 - 2:06 pm
Thanks for the link to your August 6, 2012, announcement of the ZAP project and the clear and obvious credit you have given to L.Neil Smith for coming up with the improved name. Bill Lambert seems to be “tongue in cheek” about Smith’s comments because he is being hateful and sarcastic about your ZAP initiative. I would call it “envy,” not some observation about who does and who does not respect intellectual property rights. After all, we don’t send money to the heirs of Newton whenever we make use of the gravity principle he calculated.
By Dave June 14, 2015 - 1:27 pm
One of the main rationalizations for government using or threatening aggression is the economist’s utilitarian approach to economic analysis involving costs and benefits. For a non-utilitarian review of basic economic concepts go to http://political-economists.blogspot.com.
By Michael Kraus June 25, 2015 - 1:28 pm
I tried to sign the petition and your site told me that the zip (96720) was not valid. Please check and add Hawaii zip codes to your list. I know that Hawaii resembles a third world kleptocracy but it is actually a state and the zip codes are valid.
By Perry Willis July 2, 2015 - 11:37 am
Thanks for letting us know about this Michael. We’re looking into it.
By William A Pitsker July 14, 2015 - 5:33 pm
I’m concerned about your approach to Social Security. It seems that you believe that if we had a choice, we could opt out, and no longer be encumbered. That isn’t true. As long we remain a welfare state, we are contributing to each and every debt based welfare plot, every April 15th. The way our economy is wired, everything at the federal level (and state/local as well) is underwritten by the taking of taxes. Therefore, even opting out won’t free us from the theft/pay Ponzi scheme which is our federal government. We will still be paying for those other SS checks being issued.
I propose a gargantuan correction: Downsizing our bureaucracy to Constitutionally authorized limits (more than 90% reduction), making our military defensive only, returning to the states the land that the fed has stolen, eliminating the income tax, eliminating all social payouts, paying back any and all contributions from the private sector + inflation factor + interest, and then will we be truly free of this burden.
Got to buy a big island to incarcerate all those treasonous bastards who’ve been looting our pockets – that, or shoot ’em all. (Greenland, perhaps?).
By Joe Cobb July 14, 2015 - 9:41 pm
We agree with the general problem of “transfer payments” and particularly those financed by debt, since as Jefferson foretold, the children and grandchildren never had a chance to be consulted about their future tax-slavery.
But Social(ist) Security is a discreet “fund” of money. It pretends to be some kind of actuarial system, but always ready to be bailed out by direct government subsidies, or by raising the payroll taxes on employers. It plays “let’s pretend” with its accounting system, as if it matters. If they would bail out the hedge funds, they would bail out anyone. It is just like Argentina – unless some persuasion happens by those of us who believe in Zero Aggression.
By Joe Cobb July 14, 2015 - 9:42 pm
My point is that sometimes simple minds need economics lessions taught in small doses. The SS accounting system is a good place to begin.
By Perry Willis July 20, 2015 - 1:15 pm
Hi William. Sorry for the slow reply. Things have been a bit hectic lately. There’s a lot to do after you launch a new site — things to tinker with and improve. With regard to your points about Social Security…
We’re arguing that people should be able to opt out of participating in any government program they dislike. In the case of Social Security, this would mean two things — you can opt out of Social Security taxes, but then that also means you are opting out of getting the benefits too.
We would apply this approach to all government programs.
By immafreemann September 19, 2015 - 1:40 pm
Most of the outrage against government is because of ignorance. Each man is in fact free but is ignorant of how to claim and enforce that freedom, I know of many men who have opted out of participating in society and are left alone. Does that mean they can kill their neighbor? No. But unless they harm another man they are left alone.
What status do you have? Why do you think you are a ‘subject’ of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
That any man has to obey some Code? Is it because you cannot defend against the charges against you?
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. That’s about the size of it. Very very few while try to find a way out of the police state/ slavery state that is currently in place today, but there are those that try and some succeed. So dont’ think it cant’ be done and it is free, it doesn’t require a firm comittment, it comes easily to anyone who asks for it, because IT DOENSN”T. I personally have beaten a code charge that under the code I was guilty of, but under common law I was not, and I sued the Sheriff, the judge, the DA, the Court and they still dismissed the action against me.
Everything is out there on the internet and can be studied. Just like the average man will die of Cancer because they refuse to find a cure themselves for it and will ONLY follow their licensed Doctors advice.
When there are hundreds of Youtube videos by people with nothing to gain telling you how they beat their stage 4 cancer. I guess ignorance is bliss.
By Joe Cobb July 14, 2015 - 9:49 pm
How do I start a New Topic? How can I get my photo posted like Perry and some others have?
I think it might be interesting to suggest ways that moving toward Zero Aggression might help Greece. One idea I had was to cut all pensions by 50% and have the Greek prime minister announce it along with a wage freeze for all government employees. Layoffs to follow. Then PM Tispris would call upon all young Greek people to “come to the help of their aged parents and grandparents. Give them some money voluntarily.”
The Tsipris political group could even start a public charity to collect voluntary donations and distribute those to the “needy poor” who have their welfare payments cut. But instead of raising taxes, they need to cut spending and they need ideas how to do it and bypass the old “children, widows, and orphans” argument.
By JL Mealer July 29, 2015 - 11:38 am
I am commenting for a new friend of mine (JOE COBB), so he can read my view on ZAP which I agree with as long s it does not interfere with my anti pacifist ways. I hate war except when attacked. I hate fights except when attacked or a woman or child is being abused… Or there is an uneven fight brewing with one little guy against a couple of bruisers… You know what I’m getting at.
I am running for the US Senate currently held my McCain, “Mr, Kill, Kill, Kill See The Veins In My Teeth” (From an Arlo Guthrie song Alice’s Restaurant for those who missed the reference) and will use his extremely misdirected attacks on people who should not be attacked.
While I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with the ‘non initiation of force’ stance, I feel —in my ‘personal’, ‘familial’ and ‘gaggle of friends’ sense– that IF I or anyone of them are attacked or harmed by another, then it is my duty to completely devastate the attacker, life, home, self-worth, etc. Far from a pacifist, but when I defend the right to an unmolested, unharmed, (et al) life, I would not restrain for other but I can let certain attacks against myself go away with a handshake and a beer. Grab my wife and you loose your life, punch me in the nose, I knock you out and when you wake up we go have a beer and talk it over. (Actually, I don’t drink much, so that could be an issue in a Zombie ordeal).
Further, if someone or some large group of violent people (IE the Mafia, Black Panthers, Neo Nazis, ISIS, Fed Up Grannies [who’ve had Gov’t cuts to their insurance pay-outs], etc) made a direct and serious threat that could be carried out and the preparations were made to attack me or mine or my country, I would completely eradicate their existence…. Except that the grannies cheated by the gov’t, who would receive ten-fold of what the fraudsters stole form them. I will defend the defenseless with brute force when needed and with my life if need be, YET NEVER initiate force against any other human being. This, in my view IS the Golden Rule and as I would expect to be treated. I agree with the NAP ideology, as long as the self defense to the extreme fits in with your concepts and thought process.
Where do I sign up?
http://jlmealer.com
By JL Mealer July 29, 2015 - 11:44 am
One quick follow up-
I am NOT a politician, I despise politicians.
Politicians make deals to harm others and to bargain our rights so they can make a buck on the side or in the name of society. I am the anti-politician: No one harms another being in any way, including monetarily and the absolute law must reflect that absence of power from the government and any private agency or individual or group of people…
Sound good?
JL Mealer
By Perry Willis July 29, 2015 - 2:55 pm
Hi JL. The Zero Aggression Principle does not require pacifism. We address this issue in our Mental Lever mini-article: Is the libertarian concept of Zero Aggression pacifist? You might want to check it out.
So having said, armed rebellion against The State will almost always be a bad idea practically, even in those cases where it can be justified morally. We advocate peaceful persuasion to cause social change.
By JL Mealer July 29, 2015 - 12:55 pm
Joe, my friend… RE: Greece. I don;’ mean to step on your toes, but I’ll speak reality for a minute-
The young in Greece do not have money to spare any more than most people in America. What I expect to happen is a group like the Greek version of Democrats/Eugenisists (I despise both US political parties BTW) will step in and kill of the weak, feeble and diseased or as you’d add unwittingly of course, the children, widows and o. Non productive members of their society. This is a perfect example (as with our own government) of the people being cheated (attacked/harmed/abused) through very high taxes, corrupted governmental “leaders” IE attacked tot he point of people needing to defend themselves.
If Americans or the colonists never stood up to this violent oppression with violence, none of us would be having this discussion and instead other versions of us, probably mutated due to experiments gifted from the Queen to large GMO type corporations, would be scrabbling for fetid meat and scraps of undigested corn from the royal toilets. Sure, much of this is speculation, but regardless of great ideology of ZAP, there is a limit as to what we can and should allow to be done to us before we take up arms and literally create so much aggression that the bad-guys die horrible bloody deaths.
We’ve had enough of that throughout history, but as long as their are tyrants who use force against us, we must defend ourselves with force.
Back to Greece. Like America has become, the youth tends to look at government subsistence to live on because they have no industry, no real businesses, no real jobs… Just part time garbage selling imported goods while those importing and the government make huge fortunes. Of course, now that the Greeks (which I have no use for personally), like the tide in America, can no longer purchase these great “cost saving items” and the gov’t subsidies are totally unbalance with the lack of revenue generated from globally traded corps who avoid Greek/US taxes (respectively speaking). In the USA, the Fed Res which is a very aggressive agency pushing the creation of statutes by ‘owned politicians,’ to further violently harm Americans… While in Greek they are playing the same printing press game with the Euro. ever since the gold and such was transferred out of Greece to wherever it is now owned.
Best solution for money issues in my view? Base our monetary valuation on radioactive waste for certain coins or certificates (coins are best because they can be “flipped” to the debt holders in a snide way and pay off debts with a single coin minted and granted the proper dollar amount by the US Congress….
Every state the radioactive waste travels through would by law, take a share of the value of the radioactive waste for infrastructure repairs.. Hell, we’re based on FRNs and imaginary wealth as it is. This is our ONLY way out and a revolution will only make it worse especially when Russia decides to step in and take over a failed US Gov’t.
Greece can figure it out themselves, but they could essentially do the same thing and lawfully pay their debts to anyone they owe them to. Of course, they can kiss any future loans goodbye, but solvency is a good thing for a country where globalists push this ‘world economy’ crap so we all fail when one totally different economy fails.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
JL Mealer
By Perry Willis July 29, 2015 - 2:50 pm
Hello again JL. I want to point out again here that armed rebellion against The State is usually a mistake, even when it can be morally justified. We reject the idea entirely. Instead, we must concentrate on changing minds through peaceful persuasion. That’s the only effective way to bring about the change we seek.
By voluntaryist January 3, 2018 - 7:13 pm
Tyrants are a product of majority belief in a destructive, unsustainable political paradigm, authoritarianism. It doesn’t matter what the goal or how dedicated the believers or how extensive the delusion. Authoritarianism is inhuman, self-destructive and chaotic. It is not compatible with our distinct nature as humans. We require sovereignty for all, even if we don’t believe it and reject it.
Collectivism is a form of authoritarianism. It denies sovereignty by imposing violence. To use violence as a first choice establishing sovereignty is counter-productive. Reason is compatible with sovereignty. Respect for the sovereignty of the individual, even those who don’t believe in rights, is the best way to teach a respect for reason. Violence should be a last resort, not a first one.
By David Slesinger August 20, 2015 - 12:39 pm
While Maher may or may not advocate violence with his metaphor, it’s reasonable for you to use the quote as a rationale to discuss advocacy of violence.
Check out this website for a more comprehensive advocacy of non aggression http://www.centerforchristiannonviolence.org
The problem is that the law has a legal monopoly on violence, and those with significant funds for effective counsel often have an undue advantage. That is the lesson of the OJ criminal case.
By Perry Willis August 20, 2015 - 3:05 pm
Hi David. Thanks for the comment and the tip about the Center for Christian Nonviolence. A few thoughts about the legal monopoly on violence…
Citizens can defend themselves, and even make arrests, so there is no monopoly on defensive violence. But The State grants itself an exclusive ability to initiate violence without fear of legal retribution. They then use this power to monopolize the criminal court system. We want to do two things…
End The State’s ability to initiate force. This would also, effectively end The State, by transforming it into a legitimate government. We define legitimate government as any institution of regulation or adjudication that only uses violence defensively. This would mean that there could be no legally enforced monopolies or violence-based funding (taxation). This would create a system of competing institutions of governance.
An alleged victim and aggressor could, for instance, agree to adjudicate their case in a court outside the mainstream system. This might level the playing field in interesting ways. Power could be shifted from judges to juries, which might streamline the process and lower costs. This could make disparities in legal budgets less important. In addition, victims wouldn’t be stuck with public prosecutors of dubious quality.
Imagine, for instance, what might have happened if the victims’ families in the OJ trial had been able to hire their own attorneys.
By immafreemann September 19, 2015 - 1:56 pm
The King of England was defeated and every man in north america on colonies soil because free men. Those freemen never gave up their freedom to become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (14th amendment). A man cannot be born a slave (13th amendment). No man can tell another man what to do (legislator), can take another man’s property (taxation), can give another man an order (judge). But… the BAR association can deceive you into using its terms to accept an imaginary party (the UNITED STATES or any Government) that is not real, can use deadly force against you to make a man comply with its (fictional) wishes (which are always the wishes of a real party, whether its a man acting as JUDGE, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, etc.) .
In truth its always a man that uses force against another man. The man creates the Constitution, the Constitution creates the Government, the Government creates “subject”, “citizens”, “residents”, “plaintiffs”, “defendants”, etc. Are you a man or a “taxpayer”, “citizen” etc. if you are man why dont you keep to claim and never give in that you are a man? The Courts are the slave overseers and we always convict ourselves out of ignorance. Chief Justice Renquist states to the effect-every man in prison is there voluntarily. Uh huh. Right. But it is true that every man convicted himself by his own ignorance UNLESS of course he actually caused a harm to his fellow man. If a man did not cause a harm to his fellow man he did not commit a crime and could not be arrested under the Law (Common-Law).
“[2] It is well established that “In every prosecution for crime, it is necessary to establish the corpus delecti, i.e., the {Page 254 Cal.App.2d 189} body or elements of the crime.” (1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) § 88, p. 84; People v. Francisco, 228 Cal.App.2d 355, 358 [39 Cal.Rptr. 503]; People v. Smith, 223 Cal.App.2d 225, 237 [35 Cal.Rptr. 719].) The corpus delicti consists of two elements, namely, (1) the facts forming the basis of the appeal, i.e., the facts establishing the injury, loss or harm; and (2) the criminal agency causing them to exist. (People v. Frey, 165 Cal. 140, 146 [131 P. 127]; Iiams v. Superior Court, 236 Cal.App.2d 80, 82 [45 Cal.Rptr. 627]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, supra.)” People v. Lopez (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 185 [62 Cal.Rptr. 47] [verified]
Ignorance is what makes you a slave and many have opted out successfully.
By Alexander September 29, 2015 - 3:40 pm
“Don’t threaten or initiate force.” could be misinterpreted. I suggest the following definitions:
The maximum demand of political libertarianism:
Liberty from illegitimate power is defined as
· Protection
· of legitimate property
· against aggression.
More exactly:
Liberty from illegitimate Power
is defined as a physical non-impairment of
· Living beings with ([in the near future] to be actualized with or [recently] passed) personhood qualities
· their material property (inclusively attributed room)
· and her/his legal rights from contracts.
Even more exactly:
Right of a born living being with given or to be expected personhood qualities to the application of physical coercion for the enforcement of a compensation and an educational prevention of a repeated offense against the perpetrator in the case of: an actual or threatened physical influence of a damaging type on her/his body not authorized by her/him; on her/his (essentially) material goods (won by gift or acquisition) or room to be attributed to them; or because of the breach of one of her/his contracts through one of her/his contracting parties against the same. [Equality of commissioning of an aggression or informed use of goods won by it with the crime itself.]
*
English is not my native language, so I could need help refining this political principle, which I do NOT accept in its totality, i.e. unmoderated form. This is MERELY a research and reform DIRECTION.
By Michael O'Hare December 2, 2015 - 8:23 am
Jim and Perry,
Thank you for starting this website. It’s an excellent resource for those who wish to better understand the nature of the state. This site, along with http://mises.org, are two of the best resources available to critical thinking people.
Michael
By Perry Willis December 2, 2015 - 10:56 am
Thanks for the kind words Michael.
By Robert Christian March 29, 2017 - 12:46 pm
I just found this through a link someone tried to send me. I agree very much with things said here , in the site. Our aggression as a country , and often as individuals may be the biggest driver of the world’s problems today. And I too have not been able to click on your newsletter etc. email when your site is working better.
By Joe Cobb March 31, 2017 - 3:05 pm
“Marginalism” in teaching and learning is necessary, due to the slow process of changing one’s long-believed assumptions, received from one’s parents and community elders (teachers, preachers). The voluntaryist is a “clear thinker” (sometimes contemned as a “true believer”). But the teacher should never obscure the ultimate principle, even if held to be “platonic”: Exclusively voluntary human interactions.
Our label, “libertarian,” is a generic and I use it for myself, but depending on the audience I use an adjective. What kind of “libertarian” am I? I like the adjective “conservative” to describe our limited-government friends and many are “conservative libertarians.” They agree with the “voluntaryist libertarians” as pointing to an ethical ideal, but they believe in “compromise in the short term.” This is also understood as “taking no risks” and “career promotion by self-restraint.” Many also are just not fully “converted” to the principle they agree with (much as many Christians and Muslims know they are not “true” to their holy writ, but need to support a family instead).
I avoid the label, “anarchist” or “anarcho-capitalist” merely to avoid negative connotations given to our ideas by authoritarian opponents. I like the adjective-modified label, “voluntaryist libertarian.” It has no negative connotations and (being unusual) invites the follow-up, “what’s that” from your student.
By Perry Willis March 31, 2017 - 5:03 pm
Good stuff Joe. Here are my thoughts on some of the issues you raise. I divide libertarians into three general camps (though even those camps could be divided into tinier subsets)…
Voluntaryist — those who embrace Zero Aggression on all issues
Limited-state libertarians — those who would restrict The State and taxation to police, courts, defense, and sometimes a few other functions
Quadrant libertarians — those who score in the libertarian quadrant on a Nolan Chart quiz, but who favor a more expansive state than the other two categories. Gary Johnson is an example of this kind of libertarian.
I think marginalism can be helpful in moving people into the libertarian quadrant. Attacking Jim Babka’s “pillars of statism” is most useful for moving quadrant libertarians into the limited-state or voluntaryist categories, or when, as Jim points out, the person you are talking to is jumping ahead to realize the full consequences of the ZAP. At that point you may as well start talking about the hardest issues, even if the person is not yet in the libertarian quadrant.
By EdSiceloff April 12, 2017 - 8:22 am
I like the principles. Have lived my life recognizing that anyone can only get along with anyone else (no matter what faith or political persuasion or economic persuasion) by respecting the other man or woman. Only time force is “lawful” is to stop its violence against you, or stepping up to the plate in stopping someone from being violated. I just can’t see how government, aside from one governing himself, can enter into an amenable social equation with the force that it is. Even all civil authorities have an element of force to them that needs to be eliminated. Each can be described in such a way that the core of the institution can be better described in terms of the tasks it performs in the service of those participating in it.
There is nothing real to the “authority” aside from individual human action, and thus when authority is spoken of (Political, economic, family, business, cultic, educational) it all comes down to individuals acting in a certain way towards each other. Force can be used to interrupt illegitimate force, already initiated force that should not have been initiated, but when done so, it is already a distortion of the way things should be, and we need to return as asap to “no force”.
By Stephen November 10, 2017 - 9:45 am
Please do not take this as an attack, but an invitation to reconcile the ideas of libertarianism. I do not disagree that the government has become overinvolved in a number of areas, but myself and fellow left-leaning individuals perceive a number of flaws in the ideals of libertarianism.
Firstly, how do you reconcile laissez faire economics and the externalized costs of free enterprise? There are more and more kinds of pollution and plenty of examples where multiple business will collapse a renewable resource like a fishery without regulation. Should we not have regulations that can prevent unsafe working conditions or consumer goods, or do you believe that litigation after the fact is sufficient? Is it not implied that the more complex the economy grows, the more regulations are needed to defend people? Laissez faire economics don’t seem to comport with the zero aggression policy. I would agree that most subsidies on the books e.g. corn and mortgage interest deduction, are a harmful distortion of the market that are only kept alive through political corruption or just the expectation of continuing to receive the same handouts. I however disagree with the notion that our economy is over-regulated.
Secondly how also do you assert that there are no public good causes which we can all organize around? For example, if the free market were left to build all infrastructure there would be either local monopolies on such infrastructure or redundant infrastructure created at a great cost to society.
By Jim Babka November 11, 2017 - 11:39 am
Sure, not an attack. Hope to be able to respond to your question, later.
By Stephen November 12, 2017 - 1:41 am
I just haven’t heard reasonable explanations for what appear to me at least to be big problems in the libertarian ideals. I’m not raising them to be a jerk and I’m not saying that those explanations don’t exist. I’m sure intelligent and free-thinking libertarians have considered would legitimately like to hear their reasoning. I’m sorry I wasn’t quite eloquent enough to figure out how to rephrase my thoughts more tactfully.
By Jim Babka November 15, 2017 - 11:11 am
Stephen, Your thoughtful question set comes with assumptions built-in. It is normal to base one’s opinion on the present system they know. One example would be the notion that there must be a commons which is best managed by people with little or no skin in the game. Here, we advocate for consumer-controlled governance, not against government itself. In other words, people can choose their regulators and security services.
An externality is either a benefit received without having to pay for it, or costs paid that you didn’t willingly incur. The former is labeled a positive externality, the latter a negative externality. Do externalities justify initiated force? No, because The State is the ultimate negative externality.
By Michael O'Hare November 12, 2017 - 8:18 am
Stephen, fair questions that you have brought up in a professional manner. Allow me to tackle one of your last points about monopoly.
There is no logical argument that there is such thing as a natural monopoly. Why? A monopoly is purportedly bad because it can exercise pricing power due to lack of competition. Even if we accept the premise of this position, in a free market the inevitable result of this behavior is more competition (someone will start another Amazon or cable company and undercut prices). Therefore the only way to retain monopoly pricing power is to prevent competition. It’s not possible for competition to be prevented in a free market. If competition doesn’t exist, it is either because the company is not exercising its pricing power (i.e. selling at a loss or break-even, making it unattractive for competition to enter the market – and BTW, this benefits the consumer with lower prices) or because the company has no market (which would also suppress any desire to compete with it), and in either case there is no “harm.” If a company is suppressing competition by selling at a loss with the expectation that eventually it will apply its pricing power, there is nothing preventing others from executing the same strategy, and of course the strategy is short term. For example, if all the retailers in the country want to try to collude on pricing, let them. It will only last for a short time, as one of them will be able to make more money (and take more share) by breaking out of the collusion and lowering prices. There is no long term incentive to collude, and if they do, it’s freedom of contract to do so, and another retailer could come in and undercut the group. THE ONLY COMPANIES THAT EXERCISE MONOPOLY POWER ARE STATE-CREATED (recall the ATT monopoly which was entirely a government sponsored monopoly and had to be broken up because of lack of innovation). The force of the state physically prevents or suppresses competition and creates monopoly power. As an example, note the Internet and companies around it are blossoming. Why? Because it’s a free market with very little regulation.
The first thing any successful company sees is competition from others. Any successful entrepreneur would admit to this fact. Price fixing just creates another weakness to compete against (the high price). But government interference or ineptitude can keep others from competing against the price fixing. Many claim Standard Oil was a monopoly. It wasn’t at all but it created our ridiculous anti trust law. Standard Oil was about freedom to contract, huge supply chain efficiencies that put small, inefficient producers out of business, and safer oil.
Here is the well researched story about Standard Oil:
https://www.masterresource.org/epstein-alex/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-i/
https://www.masterresource.org/epstein-alex/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-ii/
https://www.masterresource.org/epstein-alex/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-iii/
https://www.masterresource.org/epstein-alex/the-real-history-of-the-standard-oil-company-part-iv-pioneering-in-big-business/
https://www.masterresource.org/epstein-alex/capitalism-vindicated-standard-oil-part-v/
Regulation is immoral and interference by force. It is aggression against others.
Natural monopoly is is a myth. Regulation is one of the most serious problems in this country. Note that the tech/Internet sector is thriving (costs decreasing and options/access increasing) compared to healthcare, banking and education (all heavily regulated with prices increasing and access decreasing). If a company wants to keep their pipes open, they have the ability to do so. No one should be forced to do anything with their private property. We have no right to any product/service. The Internet has spawned a new industrial revolution because it’s a free market with very little regulation.
The communications/cable industry used to be heavily regulated (ATT was a govt sponsored monopoly and had to be split up because of lack of innovation). Today we have more choices and better service than every before. For example, I switched from Time Warner to Verizon and got faster speed at a lower price. This is all because of a DECREASE in regulation. Although the cable industry is still heavily regulated.
All the evidence in history is clearly on the side of deregulation. Some other articles on the topic:
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam
https://mises.org/blog/ditch-net-neutrality-now
https://mises.org/library/peter-klein-net-neutrality-lie
https://mises.org/library/question-cable-monopoly
https://mises.org/library/why-public-utility-monopolies-fail
By Joe Cobb November 11, 2017 - 5:33 pm
Among libertarians and voluntaryists, we appreciate the issues you raised – and nobody knows how to minimize the harm caused by psychopaths. Many of us have suggestive ideals about such problems as “anarchists” pose to normal people.
But the Politician Conscience Test is a measure of your wishful thinking, not a hard core policy program poll you vote for. Most people live in a “wishful thinking” universe when they think about politics, or “society” (e.g. “social” justice). We want them to think harder.
As abstract philosophy, one can question the legitimacy of political authority – that the sheriff has no more authority than you or your neighbor. But you and I live in a world where those facts have been inherited, and since some people benefit from the status quo, it will endure.
We would like to know – and show others – how much their voluntaryist or libertarian “wishful thinking” compiles into a measured proportion of everyone else; and most valuably, to poke some questions in some minds that never had asked them before, assuming “received [statist] wisdom” is the only way to go.
By russell stanton January 3, 2018 - 1:00 pm
I don’t know if this is the best place for this comment, but it was the easiest to find for it – i’m just happy as a butcher’s dog that Jim and Perry are especially talking about strategy now. Best possible strategies should ALLWAYS be a main concern. and on that subject , I have to think of 2 things to mention right away. I think it should be well contemplated that the line between aggression and self defense is actually wide and in infinite shades of gray. Ofcourse, all of us ZAP fans can see that line as sharp and narrow. But then remember that we are not the people/sheople who need to be convinced about the wisdom of the ZAP. In fact it might be best to try thinking of how the MIC (military industrial complex along with its neocon supporters), argues that their sole purpose actually is self defense – and then the 94% of Americans believe that, or act like they believe it. In the 94%’s minds it is not the relatively sharp and narrow line that we in the 4% see. How to sharpen that line for other Americans ought to be a goal maybe – maybe even for some of us who will read this crazy idea here too. Then (2) the ZAP might do better to consider that there really are many many other people and groups promoting voluntaryist libertarian principles in their own ways. I lament all the time that I can’t help to support every one of them actually in my case supporting a singe one isn’t easy. So I tend to think it would be much easier to decide who to send my surplus FRNs to if only one of the several best causes would kind of do some sort of cooperation with others – just in one way or another acknowledge the existence of others and promote them also in some way(not by sharing money ofcourse but by working together in any positive/imaginative ways), instead of continuing the condition of seeming to only compete for the precious little available support that exists for promoting morality. and then I have to remember thing 2.1, which is it’s really helpfull when it gets mentioned that zero aggression is only what all legitimate religions prescribe for a moral life. I hope everyone will start presenting that aspect more.
By Jim Babka January 3, 2018 - 4:05 pm
Russell, First, thanks for the compliments. Second, there is a determining factor that regulates all the gray and helps us understand it. The concept in question is closely related to where we get our rights. And we’ll be getting into that, in greater detail, in the future. But you’re scratching it hard when you suggest that all the zero aggression principle is really a golden rule idea, upheld by all major religions and many philosophical systems. Stay tuned. – Jim Babka
By Perry Willis January 3, 2018 - 4:15 pm
Good comments Russell. I hope the following relates. I think the difference between aggression and defensive force will largely be determined by what a unanimous jury agrees to, independent of manipulation by judges or legislation. As for how to make sure that the military only plays a defensive role, I think one way to do that is to make the funding voluntary. I believe fewer people will be willing to fund aggressive acts. This will create an incentive for the military to remain defensive.
By Carl M Case March 19, 2018 - 2:06 pm
sent $100 via PayPal today for U.S. v. Ackerman brief.
Didn’t see a way to note that on my contribution when giving thru Zero Aggression Project to claim a tax deduction for a DownsizeDC project.
By Jim Babka March 23, 2018 - 2:02 pm
We got it. Please use email to contact us about personal/technical issues, in the future. The right person will see it faster. Thanks.
By Domingo June 18, 2018 - 6:10 am
Everything is very open with a very clear description of the
issues. It was definitely informative. Your site is very useful.
Many thanks for sharing!
By Dakota July 7, 2018 - 2:43 am
I do not know if it’s just me or if everybody else encountering problems with your blog.
It appears like some of the written text within your posts are running off the screen. Can someone else
please comment and let me know if this is happening to them as well?
This might be a issue with my web browser because I’ve had this happen before.
Kudos
By Michael Patrick O'Hare April 12, 2019 - 10:44 pm
Hi Jim and Perry. Have you seen this? Can you summarize where this “logic” goes wrong?
Thx!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Z5wdydGqQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1ffGcMaaXycqGl4RYjqdGKZXiPqCVPvGstHi0_GFtYu2cSJQ43gQSPRss
By Jim Babka April 15, 2019 - 10:51 am
I really don’t like it when people say, “Stop your life and listen to lots of minutes of crap to answer some vague question.” I prefer being able to read because I can skim. It was horrible listening to both of these boring, rambling guys. What’s the time mark that matters to you or the specific question you really want answered?
Yet I listened. Here are three quick thoughts…
First, we’ve used the term initiated force here at this site, but I’m not a fan of it. I have full intention of changing it, at some point. I think the problem is “excessive force” not initiated force. That would debunk most of the alleged debunk at this link.
Second, I am not a fan of property rights arguments. It works about 95% of the time. I believe our rights come from empathy and that approach works more often. This concept has begun to appear on the site, but I haven’t had time to develop it fully.
Third, the “just distribution starting point” was actually addressed, consistently (and to the exacting standard they layout), by Murray Rothbard. Like most people who critique the ZAP, these two boring dudes are smugly self-satisfied with tearing down straw men. I mean, Ben literally invents a narrative about the Garden of Eden. I’ve not read Nozick, but I doubt it’s there. I know that it’s not Rothbard’s take.