No Coercion

So as I sit here sipping my Bicardi and cola, I have to wonder at the absurdity and–not to put too fine a point on it–wholesale injustice of the fact that the “great” state of North Carolina controls my natural human right to purchase liquor and does so with an iron fist one would expect to be reserved for the most heinous of inhuman acts. How, in the 21st century, do we stand idly by and allow ourselves to be strong-armed by the state in our enjoyment of our spirituous refreshments?

Under the regime of the state of North Carolina, I could be thrown in jail (or killed, if I resist) just for distilling my own special brand of whiskey and attempting to sell it to my neighbors, who are willing buyers. Why do we permit a group of people lacking natural authority over our actions (but claiming for themselves some arbitrary authority granted by nonsensical democracy and social contract theory) to tell us what beverages we can or cannot buy and sell? And why do we (now speaking for the polity as represented by the organized crime cartel known as the government) insist on initiating force against our neighbors for their choice of livelihood? What right have we to assault and kill our fellow man for creating and selling a particular kind of drink that is in demand by others?

I say enough is enough. It’s time we learned to grow up and behave in a civilized fashion. All state alcohol control authorities, including my own state’s despicable Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, must be fought and ultimately abolished without delay. Write letters to the editor of your local paper, call and write your state elected officials, be creative! Above all, don’t ever–ever–accept the notion that the state has legitimate authority over you. Your only authority is you. Now, in the spirit of my Irish heritage, let’s drink and fight!

[Update: I have submitted concatenated versions of this post as letters to the editor of both the Herald Sun of Durham and the News & Observer of Raleigh. Both papers are already familiar with my work. He he he. ]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 Should be interesting to see what comes of this:

Paul Alleges Boondoggle on the Bayou

Wouldn’t surprise me if a state GOP organization was working against Ron Paul, but hopefully this is just some kind of bizarre mistake.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If I see one more vapid fluff piece about how Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to “unify America,” I’m honestly going to start looking around to see if Rod Serling is standing off to the side addressing the audience.

Why on Earth should unifying America even be a minor goal of a presidential candidate, let alone a primary goal? Unity, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad–and it certainly has the potential to be extremely bad. After all, Hitler unified Germany. Mao unified mainland China. Lenin and later Stalin unified the Soviet Union. (The only kind of unity that could possibly be good would be a completely voluntary spontaneous unity in which everyone was unified in the belief that it is unacceptable to initiate force against someone else–a sort of anarchic unity. But of course such a spontaneous unity would be one that didn’t involve any politicians, whose jobs are premised on initiation of force.)

One of the redeeming qualities of America is that we tend to have a healthy debate on most issues, resulting in a constantly evolving marketplace of ideas and perpetual shifting of ’sides.’ Hell, I used to be an authoritarian, jingoistic, socially intolerant, right-wing conservative. Wanna get all ‘unified’ under the former me?

What about Obama? He may be pro-liberty on some social issues and have half decent foreign policy instincts (but only half decent), but he’s an absolute authoritarian on economic issues. He advocates violence and coercion in the form of redistributive taxation, telling people who they can and can’t hire and how to set employee wages, business regulations (which, by definition, are unwanted obstacles government places between willing buyers and sellers attempting to engage in a voluntary transaction), government control of education, restrictions on voluntary international trade, and myriad other government actions that coerce people, reduce competition, destroy wealth (or prevent it from being created), eliminate potential choices available to consumers, prevent people from earning a living, and generally violate individual rights and reduce our overall standard of living. Do you really want this guy to “unite” America?

Personally, I really like the divided and contentious nature of our society. It keeps us sharp and keeps things interesting. It would be horrible if we all thought the same way and just mindlessly followed someone who was designated the ‘leader’ of the nation. Even if everyone in America suddenly became an anarchist or radical libertarian and succeeded in completely eliminating government, there still would be (and should be) huge disagreements about all sorts of things–it’s just that in a voluntary society free from government, a true, honest debate could take place. You could debate someone all day long about the merits of using technology to radically extend the human life span, but at the end of the day both sides would know that there’s no group of people with a legal monopoly on initiation of force standing outside with guns waiting to force either one to abide by the choice of the other.

And even though I enjoy when people e-mail me or comment on my blog in agreement with something I’ve said, I like it even more when someone disagrees with me. It challenges me to think more deeply about my position and formulate clearer arguments–or, as has happened in the past, actually realize that my argument was invalid or that I was entirely wrong.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but the last thing I want to see is a “unified America.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Raise your hand if you’re sick of these politicians and their juvenile tirades against “business.” I know it’s the campaign season and all, but come on! And while I especially cringe when I hear the parasitic rants that the Democrats are so fond of, the formerly pro-economic-freedom Republicans are (with the exception of Ron Paul and sometimes Giuliani) getting in on the action, too. Of course, all these officials are constantly egged on and encouraged in this nonsense by a disturbingly large fraction of the American people, who whine incessantly about all the terrible profits being made by the evil corporations and how there should be minimum and maximum wages, and trade restrictions, and consumer “safety” rules, and progressive taxation, and all manner of other measures that should be taken by the “noble” politicians in an effort to curb the “excesses” of businesses and stand up for the “common good.”

I think what the American people need is a healthy reminder of the actual nature of both business and politics. Following are a couple of appropriate quotes that can help put things in perspective.

From Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

What is economic power? It is the power to produce and to trade what one has produced. In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.

Wealth, in a free market, is achieved by a free, general, “democratic” vote—by the sales and the purchases of every individual who takes part in the economic life of the country. Whenever you buy one product rather than another, you are voting for the success of some manufacturer. And, in this type of voting, every man votes only on those matters which he is qualified to judge: on his own preferences, interests, and needs. No one has the power to decide for others or to substitute his judgment for theirs; no one has the power to appoint himself “the voice of the public” and to leave the public voiceless and disfranchised.

Now let me define the difference between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.

And here’s a great letter that Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek sent to USA Today back during the Christmas season:

Even more predictable than the post-Thanksgiving appearance of shopping-mall Santas is the inability of pundits at this time of year to say or to write “commercialism” without prefixing to it the word “crass” - as we encounter in your pages today in Tom Krattenmaker’s “The real meaning of Christmas.”

I challenge this notion.  Commerce is peaceful. It involves sellers working hard and taking risks to bring to market goods and services that consumers want to buy.  No one forces anyone to do anything; all is voluntary.

What truly is crass is politics - that sorry spectacle of power-seeking ego-maniacs who, when not pronouncing platitudes, are promising to help group A by picking the pockets of group B.  While commerce is honest, politics is duplicitous.  While commerce is peaceful, politics inevitably pits citizen against citizen.  Far more enlightened and ethical behavior is on display during any one day in a shopping mall than the most intrepid observer will find in a century on Pennsylvania Avenue.

And yes, I do realize there are businesses out there doing some really sketchy things that violate the voluntary and value-based nature of commerce. But every single one of those instances is a result of the government getting involved and lending some of its power to those offending businesses. Isn’t it ironic that the people complaining about abuses by businesses are always calling for giving the government more power over business, thus resulting in ever-increasing instances of businesses choosing what seems the most rational course of action and using that government power to their advantage?

What say you, fair readers?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!