Brad Miller

Posts Tagged ‘Frederic Bastiat’

The War on Chronic Pain Patients

In Freedom, Medicinal Freedom, natural rights, True nature of the State on March 28, 2018 at 5:39 am

“The Law”

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it. Frederic Bastiat French Economist 1850

One hundred and sixth eight years since this was written about the French government we are seeing the exact same thing occur here in America. The opioid hysteria has created a barbaric, evil, and insidious regulation and severe restriction of pain medication while at the same time enriching a few who use the force of law to profit from the misery and pain of others.

I’ve been in chronic pain for over thirty years now. It all started with a severe case of Ulcerative Colitis that required a major surgery to save my life. It didn’t go well. That began my horrible and terrifying relationship with physical pain.

My main relationship in my life since I can remember has been pain. It is always with me, demands my attention, and requires me to attend to it day and night. It is persistent and unrelenting.

In the past I’ve been fortunate to have doctors who’ve in the past believed that I shouldn’t suffer needlessly and provided me with pain medicine. This helped me to eke out, somewhat of a life, in between the hospital stays and surgeries. Even with pain meds I still hurt but as long as I know I can take one or two at night to rest and sleep I can endure the pain throughout the day.

That has all changed since the hysteria machine around opioids has been unleashed upon us. My GP was providing chronic pain management with opioids for the last three years. He stopped this year in large part, I believe, because of the fear of attracting unwanted attention from regulators.

What makes this so insidious is that he isn’t even in trouble for anything yet, and he chose to stop for fear of something that may or may not happen in the future. My pain is a certainty. It’s easier for doctors to say no then it is for them to take a risk. You’ll here some say they are afraid of losing their licenses but that to me is an excuse for not wanting to stand up for their patients and their supposed principles.

When good people don’t stand up, tyranny and injustice multiplies. I’m experiencing that myself with my recent attempts to obtain pain medicine. My GP referred me to a pain clinic. I called them and after a week of back and forth phone calls they finally decided they didn’t accept my “limited benefit plan”, didn’t accept new self-pay patients and didn’t treat GI patients.

I did ask them if they knew of any pain clinics that did treat people with GI related pain and they said no. So long story short I called all the doctors I’ve known for about thirty years and they were no help, I called about ten pain clinics and none accepted my insurance, and almost none treated GI related pain and they didn’t have anyone they could recommend me to. One did wish me the best of luck though.

I did find a couple on my own that would consider treating me but they couldn’t guarantee that the doctor would deem me worthy of a prescription for pain killers until he saw me. I’d have to come in for an initial assessment. In order to see the holy doctor I’ll have to shill out $375 – $600 for the first visit depending on which pain clinic I decide to go to. This is insanity.

On top of the initial charge for the “assessment” if they are so “merciful” to grant me one of their precious prescriptions for pain killers, I’ll have to come back for monthly visits like I’m some kind of goddamn parolee. And each monthly visit will run around $200.

I’ve seen this process of demonizing people in pain slowly developing over the course of my thirty plus year odyssey of pain. I remember when doctors were told they could no longer call in pain pill prescriptions, I remember the first time I heard a doctor express concern about the DEA when I asked for pain medicine, and I remember when I was forced to sign a pain contracts and get urine tested every 90 days like I was a convicted criminal. All of these incremental policies did nothing to ease my pain or make me “safer” from myself. Instead they are what has led us to where we are today.

The Law has been perverted to reap profits for the pharmaceutical industries, the doctors and the addiction industry. Their profits are paid for by the misery and pain of millions of Americans who have no lobbyists and have been abandoned by the medical community.

Besides the profits that those who benefit from this type of hysteria are raking in, I belief there is a dark undercurrent at work as well. We are rapidly approaching more and more regimented healthcare.

Chronically ill folks like me are a drain on the system in the eyes of central planners. I do firmly believe there are those who believe in the tenets of centralized medicine who would prefer I was not around soaking up “healthcare resources”.

Pain pills are extremely cheap though. Last year including doctors visits for chronic pain management plus the cost of my pain medicine added up to around $600. Now I’m stuck with a tab, if I’m able to obtain a prescription, of around $3800. That is insane. But my surgeries and hospital stays have cost insurance companies millions. If I stick around I’ll more than likely need more surgeries and hospital stays.

When did it become okay to bully people in pain? When did it become okay to treat people in physical pain like criminals? When did it become okay to rape them with insane costs for doctor visits? When did it become okay to make people in pain ashamed or afraid to ask their doctor for pain medicine? When did it become okay for doctors to refuse to treat people in pain? When did it become okay to deny one of the only truly effective treatments medical doctors have at their disposal?

The options for people in pain today are worse then they’ve been since before the discovery of the effectiveness of the poppy plant to alleviate physical suffering thousands of years ago. Those who are in pain and denied or restricted pain medication are effectively being forced to live in the Stone Age.

I believe that those in chronic pain are being pushed into making some extremely difficult decisions. The choices are to find alternatives on the black market, try to continue in agony or end their life. All three are a death sentence handed down by the uncaring, ignorant and greedy individuals in the government and the medical industry.

Living in pain is like being in hell. The one description of hell I liken it to is not the fire and pitchfork type but the cold and desolate hell, where God is totally absent. If you believe that God represents all that is good in the world then living in physical pain is the absence of all of that.

Being in pain makes life unbearable. The equation that everyone makes each day is, “is the pain of life worth the results of your actions?” For me the answer is many times no.

A few years ago Sarah Palin (I’m not a fan) was lambasted for daring to suggest that Obamacare had provisions for a death panel in order to ration healthcare. Today we are seeing this concept put into action. Chronic pain patients are being denied the very treatment that would save their lives. The new opioid regulations are effectively a form of a “Death Panel” but it’s so diffused throughout the system no one takes responsibility for denying people in pain the relief they need to continue living.

I believe that a part of the medical community, some in the insurance industry and many in the government are all too happy to get rid of the chronic pain patient because they are easy targets, they soak up resources and remind them and others of the failures of modern medicine. Most chronic pain patients have had multiple surgeries or have an intractable disease that modern medicine can’t treat effectively. This is another driver of the propaganda pushing the opioid crisis narrative.

The opioid hysteria is focusing on the wrong target. Pain patients aren’t the problem. Only about 1% or less become addicted. The opioid overdoses we hear so much about are really caused black market drugs laced with illicit fentanyl. Many pain patients are being pushed into this market by the increasing cost, time demands and humiliation required to obtain life saving pain medication.

The very law meant to save lives is killing people while others make a tidy profit.

(I’m not against profit. I’m against individuals and industries using the force of government to obtain it.)

I’m not an addict. I’m just in pain. My abdomen hurts all the time. From adhesions pulling and stretching my insides to a pancreas/gall bladder/bile duct issue that hasn’t been properly diagnosed or treated, I suffer everyday of my life from the time I get up to the time I finally fall asleep.

I wish I was stronger but the pain wins everyday. If I keep busy enough I can keep its shouting down to tolerable levels. But once I stop moving it returns like a bullhorn from hell. Pain medicine simply helps dial down the volume.

The Law is meant to protect individual rights. It has been perverted today, as Bastiat wrote, to enrich a small group of people who use the force of the government to satisfy their greed while violating the rights of individuals.

They are using the Law to violate my natural right to consume what I choose and to bear the responsibility of my choices.

Pain medicine isn’t an evil that should be locked away behind armed government agents and doctors who are either scared or greedy, but should be available at the low cost the market puts on them for those who choose to take them.

Physical pain creates a living hell for millions of Americans. It destroys hope, severs relationships, and poisons the mind. Pain medicine can help ease their physical and emotional suffering.

I do have an appointment to see a pain doctor on April 4th. It will be at his discretion if he prescribes pain pills or not. That’s after I fork over $400 for the initial assessment. Where else do you give someone $400 for a service and don’t have a right or ability to know if the service you are seeking will be provided or not? It is insane how far this opioid hysteria has gone.

On the surface the purpose of all these punitive and restrictive laws are to protect people from themselves.They are said to save lives but all they are doing is ruining the lives of millions of peaceful, productive and suffering fellow Americans whose bodies have already betrayed them.

This further betrayal by the government and the medical system has too many pain patients making the awful but understandable decision to end their suffering the only way they know how. They are being forced into taking their own lives due to the barbaric and unfeeling bureaucratic machine that cut them off from the one thing that allowed them to stay alive on this planet.

Death can seem like the only way out for those suffering from intractable pain if they are denied pain medicine. I’ve contemplated it in the past myself and have struggled with those type of thoughts during this stressful stretch of time while trying to find a doctor who will help me. I won’t go to the black market. I don’t trust it. So I can either suffer another ten days or so and hope that the doctor will find my suffering worthy or I can end my time here on planet Earth.

I’ve tried alternative therapies like Kratom and Cannabis, both of which for me help with withdrawal symptoms, but not so much with the pain. I’m miserable tonight. I know I’ll wake up in pain and I’ll go to bed in pain tomorrow. It’s 4:00am and I have to get up at 6:30am to get ready for work.

I’m so tired of hurting. I know if I kill myself those closest to me will be devastated. They, like me for some reason even though I feel worthless, unreliable and unsociable most of the time. I known if I do end my life the little ones in my life would be most hurt. I read one time that if you have children in your life who love you and you commit suicide, it’s like hitting them in the head with a hammer. I won’t do that tonight.

That’s why I’ll get up in a couple hours. That’s why I’ll continue on another day.


Individualism and the Individual Mandate: Two Incompatible Concepts

In True nature of the State on March 28, 2012 at 3:53 am

For the last few days the Supreme Court has listened to a case in which they have been asked to decide the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

This case is not about Health Care. It’s not about lowering premiums or rectifying the problem of the uninsured shifting healthcare costs to the insured, it’s not about increasing access to health care. It is simply a debate between whether or not the U.S. Federal Government is a government adhering more to the principles of Individualism or Collectivism.

The Individual Mandate is based upon the principle of Collectivism which is the opposite of the principle of Individualism,which the Federal Government was originally founded upon.  But over the course of the last 225 years after the Constitution was ratified more and more laws have been passed that were based upon the ideas of Collectivism and most have been upheld as “Constitutional” by the Supreme Court.

Ayn Rand wrote in her awesome essay titled “Textbook of Americanisms” that

“Individualism holds that man has unalienable rights which can not be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of men. Therefore each man exists for his own sake and not for the sake of the group.”

On the other hand the Individual Mandate which forces every American to purchase a product is based upon the ideas of Collectivism because it’s the majority who are using the force of Government to coerce individuals to act in a certain way.

In “Textbook of Americanisms” Ayn Rand explained what  the principle of Collectivism really boils down to:

 “Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work; his body; his personality belong to the group; the group can do with him as it pleases; in any manner it pleases; for the sake of whatever it decides to be it its own welfare”

But we must remember that the Affordable Care Act with its Individual Mandate is not the first Law based upon Collectivist principles passed by the Congress.  In fact over the last 100 years there have been innumerable laws that violate the Inalienable Rights of individuals for “the Greater Good of the Collective” and the Affordable Health Care Act with its Individual Mandate is just the latest of these.

One of the most dastardly of those laws that usurps Individual Liberty and confiscates justly earned property is the Social Security Act which was passed back in 1935.  Judge Ginsberg even cited this very law as a precedent during arguments in the Individual Mandate case.

Judge Ginsberg said Social Security caused “a big fuss about that in the beginning because a lot of people said — maybe some people still do today — I could do much better if the government left me alone. I’d go into the private market… I’d make a great investment, and they’re forcing me to paying for this Social Security that I don’t want; but, that’s constitutional.”

If Congress wants to address the problem of the uninsured then, Ginsburg said, “Social Security is its model.”

The Individual Mandate deals with everyone’s fundamental right to their property and their ability to dispose of that property as they see fit. Collectivism holds that no individual has a right to dispose of his property except by how the administrators of the “people’s will”, the State deems appropriate. The myriad of laws based upon Collectivism that brought us the tyranny of the income tax, social security, medicare, medicare part D, food stamps, corporate welfare, public education, and agriculture subsidies  have all laid the foundation for the “Individual Mandate” in the Affordable Care Act. All of these laws have taken the property of some individuals for the benefit of others. If the Government can take any of your property by force it can take it all. The question is how much can they get away with at anyone time and that is what is currently being argued in front of the Supreme Court.

Some would argue it’s not the Government who is taking your money. The Government is just forcing or “Mandating” that you pay insurance companies for health insurance. Well that’s not true. If someone can direct by force where an individual spends his income then that person no longer owns that property. Someone else does. And it is insidious if you think about the Government taking possession of your property and then handing it over to a private company all for the “Greater Good”. That is frightening.

If the Individual Mandate is struck down as Unconstitutional that will not eliminate all the other Collectivist Laws that are currently on the books. Even if it’s not struck down it gives those who love liberty a great chance to talk to folks who may not understand the underlying principles involved on both sides of the argument. For any of your friends and family who are unsure about what is truly at stake in front of the Supreme Court and really at stake every time any law is passed; a great way to get them thinking in these terms is to ask them the following question:

Do you want to live in a country where your rights are respected as inalienable and that they are part of who you are or do you want bureaucrats, politicians and your neighbors determining how much of your property you can keep, where you can live, who you can associate with, what products you must buy or whether you should live or you should die?

Frederic Bastiat a French Economist and Ardent Defender of Individual Liberty described in his classic “Harmonies of Political Economy” what a Government based upon the principle of Individualism would say to the citizens who constituted it.

You have invested me with the public Force. I shall apply it exclusively to those things in which the intervention of Force is permissible, and there is but one—Justice. I shall force everyone to conform himself within the bounds of right. You may work freely and as you please during the day, and sleep in peace at night. I have taken under my charge the security of person and property—that is my mission, and I will fulfill it—but I accept no other. Let there then be no longer any misunderstanding between us. Henceforth you shall pay me only the light tribute that is necessary for the maintenance of order and the administration of justice. Keep in mind that henceforth every man must depend upon himself for his subsistence and advancement. Turn no longer your longing eyes to me. Ask me no longer for wealth, for employment, for credit, for education, for religion, for morality. Never forget that the mainspring of your development is in yourselves. As for me, I never act but through the intervention of force. I have nothing, absolutely nothing, but what I derive from you, and for this reason I cannot confer even the smallest advantage on one except at the expense of another. Cultivate your fields, then, manufacture and export your products, carry on trade, afford each other credit, render and receive services freely, educate your children, set them out in life, cultivate the arts, improve your minds, refine and purify your tastes and sentiments, unite, form industrial and charitable associations, join your efforts for your individual good and that of the public, follow your inclinations, fulfill your destinies by the free exercise of your powers, your ideas, and your foresight. Expect from me only two things—Liberty and Security— and depend upon it you cannot ask me for a third without losing the other two.”

This passage from Bastiat’s “Harmonies of Political Economy” rings so true today. It was first published in 1850  during a time when Socialistic thought was being embraced by the majority of the French People. Unfortunately the same Collectivist ideas that existed back in Bastiat’s time are alive and well in America today as evidenced by the passing of laws like the Affordable Care Act. What would are current Federal Government say to us today? I believe it would say that you are not an individual you are part of the “Collective”. The will of the majority determines your rights. I am the administrator of the “Collective will”.  I confer to others confiscated property of some to benefit others in order to grow my power. Everyone who lives within my borders is my property and all the product of their labor is mine to dispose of as I see fit. Everyday I am working to ride myself of the last chains of the Constitution in order to fully express my desire for unlimited power. That is exactly what the Federal Government is doing before the Supreme Court with the Individual Mandate Case.

But I am hopeful, not necessarily for the outcome of the case currently before the Supreme Court but for the ideas that are being exposed by this blatant power grab by Government and the Collectivist Ideology that underpins it. Never before since  the American Revolution has there been so many individuals cognizant of the difference between Individualism and Collectivism and between Liberty and Coercion.

I don’t advocate for a violent revolution like the one that started this Nation. I advocate for peaceful political change. This “Change”will only happen when more and more individuals understand that the words ” You are endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are not dead words written on an ancient sheep skin but are an expression of living Natural Law. And that it is only when the law of man is congruent with the Natural Law will individuals be able to flourish and become what they are capable of becoming. A government that is based upon the Principle of Individualism is the only government that can create an environment where no law is passed to violate the Natural Rights of individuals. Under this environment a Free Market emerges and technological advances occur, food is produced in abundance and everyone has the best chance at creating the life that they desire.

Under a political system based upon Individualism as Ayn Rand wrote ” No one has a right to initiate force against another individual”. And that includes using the Force of Government to coerce uninsured individuals into buying health insurance.

But as more and more laws are passed based upon the ideas of Collectivism that violate the Natural Law, the ability of individuals to innovate and create diminishes, products become more scarce and more expensive and human potential rots on the vine.  No amount of social engineering can change the immutable laws of Nature.

Individualism or Individual Mandate. We can’t have both!

Brad Miller

AdvocateofLiberty and Living Life

I am an advocate of Maximum Individual Liberty within a Free Market Society devoid of any Government. But until that day is here I advocate for the reduction of the Federal Government and all forms of state, county and city governments down to their core mandate which is , as Bastiat wrote, “to the Maintaining of Order and Justice”.

If Human Nature is Evil; How can we ever be Free?

In Liberty, True nature of the State on February 26, 2012 at 10:25 pm

Should individuals be free to interact with others as they see fit or should all human interactions be regulated and governed?

That is the question that every law passed answers. It’s ironic that most people view themselves as peaceful but they view everyone else as evil. Every law from Banking Regulations to Free Medical Care aims at the fundamental question: Are humans fundamentally evil? If left free would individuals violate or respect the Natural Rights of Others? Stated differently if you know that no one is watching do you try to steal from your neighbor? Do you try to kill that old lady for her pocket book?

I belive this is one aspect of the freedom argument that most people skirt around. Most people believe that Human Nature is fundamentally evil. They believe that humans will violate the Natural Rights of others to meet their own needs every chance they get. This is the reason why Government has no limits to its scope. Once that premise is accepted there is no end to the kinds of transactions that governments will be called upon to regulate.

Look at the TSA scanners and patdowns. Those searches assume that every individual who is boarding a plane is planning to murder all the passengers on board. Every regulation of business assumes that individuals within those companies are seeking to steal and defraud those who purchase their products and services.

If Humans have to be “regulated” in order for a peaceful society to exist then everyone should be advocating for a Total State. Because we are not safe from anyone including ourselves. That is exactly the attitude that is gaining wider and wider acceptance everyday.

The Total State adherents believe that no man on Earth (except themselves and their ilk) will  behave peacefully toward their fellow-man. Conservatives and Liberals both hold this fundamental truth. Liberals believe that the “Greedy” will destroy the weak and the Conservatives believe the “infidels” will either blow up the faithful or the “infidels” will rebel against God and thus bring down God’s wrath upon the faithful as well as the “infidels”. Either way individuals will not and fundamentally can not coexist in a peaceful society, and its only with the omnipresent gaze and the iron hand of government can humans live in close proximity with each other.

But this assumption is acutally is disproven throughout history. It is always those who sought power to rule over others who have killed, pillaged and destroyed thoughtout the history of government on Earth. Who conscripts the armies of the world? Who directs the battleships? Who confiscates tribute, which today is called taxes. Who lies and obfuscates in order to remain in power? It is predominantly those who seek and hold public office.

I don’t believe that humans are fundamentally evil. Because I don’t believe I am. Do you believe that you are? Do you believe your family is fundamentally evil? Do you believe your friends are? Do you believe that your co-workers are? Do you believe that they are at their heart murderers, thieves and liars?

If you answered yes to these questions then you need to have the Government, which is Legalized Force, to intervene, surveil and govern all interactions between yourself and yourself, between yourself and your family, between yourself and your friends, and between yourself and your co-workers and between yourself and your customers. (I define customers as anyone who purchases your product or service. For most of us that is our boss.) That is the only logical conclusion to the idea that we are all evil and must be watched so that we do not hurt ourselves or anyone else we come into contact with.

Ayn Rand believed that there was actually no conflict between the competing interests of Rational Men. She belived that rational men only gain what they can earn.  That concept even applies to love, because two men can never have the same love from a woman. Who ever a woman chooses to love, the other man could never have what she is giving to the other man. That is the essence of the absence of competition.

Rational individuals will only get what someone else is willing to give them in return for their product or service. If a customer wants to buy from a “competitor” the only recourse for a rational man is to improve his product, sell it at a cheaper price or look for other customers. A rational man never uses force to extract involuntarily something that he wants from another individual. A rational man only trades for what he wants.

I believe the whole idea of the evilness of man comes down the static concept of the World. That is a belief that there are limited resources and man being an animal will compete to get as much as he can, no matter who he has to kill, steal from or deceive to do it. This is a very pessimisitce and limited view of life. If there is truly a static “Pie” of all things and everyone must fight to get their “share” then I can see where some folks would think everyone would use force instead of trading to sustain and increase their life.

But look at the material wealth and abundance of food created in the last 200 years beacause of the energies of the Free People of America and to a lesser extent Europe. Could anyone have imagined the “pie” that exists today existing in 1812 or even 1912 or even in 1976? No. The idea of a static world or a static economy is insane. Life is change.

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man” Heraclitus

Most Collectivists hold as the definition of individualism as the  strong exploiting the weak. This could not be farther from the truth. It is a simplistic Collectivist view of the world. The main question besides the fact that peaeful trade improves everyone’s life withing a society is the question “Who defines who is strong and who is weak?” And more importantly who is going to be the one’s to “correct” the behavior of the strong, how will they have the resources to do so and until everyone is “equalized” won’t there always be those who will have more wealth than others? So the end game of all the Collectivist has to be Communism in which everyone is “equalized”.

And when these Collectivists get into power aren’t they now the “Strong” in Society? I would define anyone who has at their disposal a Trillion Dollar Military as the “Strong”. And if humans are fundamentally evil , then the more power they acquire the more evil they are.  Then wouldn’t it hold true that those who hold the “reigns of power” of Government are the most evil, because they are the most powerful in Society? You can see the absurdity of the Central Planners argument.

Frederic Bastiat lived during the time of increasing Socialism as we do today. In his time as now men were competing to come up new ways to “organize society”. He was an ardent opponent to all State planning. He would be well at home in the Liberty Movement of today.

For me Bastiat was a progenitor of the Anarcho-Capitalist movement even though his writings are overwhemingly in favor of a laissez-faire minarchist state.

“Even in the absence of all law, society would resist such acts (murder, theft, fraud), and consequently such resistance is a general law of humanity”.

He believed that Government should be only constituted to defend life, liberty and justly earned property. But his writings on the “harmonious nature of man” lays actually the foundation for the elimination of any Government.

What keeps you from violating the Natural Rights of others? Is it the fear of Hell or Jail? Or is the fact that you know that if you violate the Natural Rights of others you can not prosper in the long run? Is it because you know that eventually the truth will be found out and no one will want to interact with you because of your previous actions?

If you look at most world religions at their basic core is the Golden Rule. Most people practice that on a daily basis. And they wouldn’t if it did not help promote  peaceful relations with other individuals. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Or stated differently don’t do anything to someone else you don’t want them to do to you.

I personally like the second version because it is a more “negative” view of action. It simply means I don’t want to be killed, stolen from or lied to. So I do not do that to others. We can only control our own actions. We can not control the actions of others ( Unless you are a Government Official).

Society is nothing more than the collection of individuals. Like Marcus Aurelius wrote “I am a Rational and Social Animal.”
Humans seek to interact socially with other individuals for many reasons. Ayn Rand wrote that the human animal is unique in the fact we can benefit from the passing down of knowledge from others and improve our lives trading with other humans.

A society is a mechanism in which individuals can learn from and trade with other human beings. . How long can any society exist if members are allowed to kill at will, steal whatever they like or deceive those who seek to trade with them? I tell you not very long. This is a fundamental economic Law. It doesn’t matter if gangs are running rampant in a small town killing, extorhting and stealing property or if its on a completely systematic way when a Government is based upon Collectivist principles. Eventually production is reduced and the standard of living for everyone including those who hold the reigns of power or the head of the maurading gang deterirorate because Collectivism destroys, it never creates.

But if humans are evil then there isn’t an instance of human interaction (including the transaction of love) in which the Government should not be involved in. If you are fundamentally evil and the only thing holding you back from murdering and stealing from your fellow-man is the threat of death or imprisonment then we need an unlimited Government to regulate and govern every human interaction.

That is what all Collectivism trends towards. What is ironic is that the mechanism of Government through which the Planners use in an attempt t0 extinguish Human evil is in itself an implement of murder, theft and deception. Its like trying to put out a match with a flame thrower.

When you go buy Zaxby’s and they serve you your food, do you think that the people fying up your chicken fingers  want you to die of Salmonella? Of course not. They want you to enjoy your delicious chicken fingers and then come back and buy from them again.  And if you get sick there and its traced back to them they will go out of business because others will stop buying their chicken fingers.

That is a simple example of Rational Self-Interest and that is the basis for all peaceful human interactions. Iits not the government but a person’s own Rational Self Intersest which impels each of us to try to improve and increase our own life which in turn compels us to trade peacefully with others.

I’m not saying there aren’t criminals in this world. But they are small in comparison to the criminals who currently populate the Government. Has any other criminal in the world stolen  trillion dollars, killed 100’s of millions of people or lie to millions of people everyday? Has anyone criminal orgainzation printed up trillions of counterfeit hundred dollar bills? No. Only the State can get away with that bull mess.

Government is the problem and Liberty is the Solution.

In reality its the thoughts in the minds of individuals who believe that individuals are evil and that huge intrusive destructive government is necessary which is the real problem. Only when the minds of men change will there be an external peaceful political revolution, one in which Government is chained down once again to its role of protecting your Natural Right to your life, liberty and earned property.

But as I’ve written in previous posts its only when a third of the population wants to be free, believes they can live peaceably with other individuals in society and have the courage to be self-responsible will the Collectivist ideas fall out of favor along with government based upon those ideas. Everything man made was first fashioned in the minds of men.
I belive that only when individuals are free to trade with other individuals will the most peaceful society possible  exist. I’m not talking about a Utopia. I’m talking about a world in which individuals are free to pursue their own uniqueness and uncover their potential. And the only way to do that is to freely and peacebly trade with their fellow-man.

I don’t believe humans are fundamentally evil. Every human being has to live. The best way to live is in peace. The freer individuals are the more peaceful they are. That is a fact. I want to live in the freest and most peaceful world I can. That is why I’m working to reach 2.3 billion people to spark their personal mental revolution that will lead eventually to an external peaceful political revolution.

Freedom is a good thing. And like Mises wrote “Freedom always means freedom from Government”. Not freedom from the responsibility of peaceably interacting with ourselves and our fellow man.

Brad Miller

AdvocateofLiberty, Peace and Loving Life

Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil”: Still relevant 53 years later

In Advocates of Liberty, Free Market Miracles on August 29, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Leonard Read the founder of FEE and a champion of the Freedom Philosophy published his most famous work “I, Pencil” in 1958.

   “I, Pencil” is a short, succinct story that dispels at once the “know-it-all-ness” of central planners by illustrating how not a single man on Earth knows how to make a simple wooden pencil.

    By tracing the manufacture of himself, the “pencil” reveals that millions of individuals had their hand at helping him come into being. The story brings to life the  miraculous “spontaneous order” that the “invisible hand” brings about when individuals free of coercion exchange upon the Free Market.

“I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies— millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human masterminding!” 

  The pencil traces its genealogy  from a single tree to all the other natural resources and human energy needed to bring about its existence. He explains that it’s not just the person who fells the tree, mines the graphite or runs the machines in the pencil factory that are responsible for his creation.  What is unseen in the creation of the pencil is the millions of individuals who mined the ore for the steel to make the saws and machinery and the ships and trucks. Then there are the men who are unseen who are involved in getting oil out of the ground, refined and transported. Taken a step further there are the other individuals who go unseen who produce the food, clothing and housing for the workers who build the saws and machines, drives the trucks, mines the ore, fell the trees, produce the lacquer and finally runs the pencil making machines.

   The revelation that millions of people are needed to produce a single pencil changed the way I viewed the world. Sir Isaac Newton is credited with saying that “We stand upon the shoulder of giants” when he referred to his accomplishments . “I, Pencil” illustrates a similar truth that we all are dependent upon on the millions of people around the world who everyday  have a hand in making the things we buy.

   Stressing the need for “faith in Free People” the pencil implores the reader to contemplate that these millions of exchanges that must occur for him, a simple pencil, to come into being are not directed by anyone in government. They are the result of free individuals using their small amount of knowledge to produce their small piece of a product that others want in exchange for products and services they want.

   This story is similar to what Bastiat wrote a hundred years before “I, Pencil”. In Natural and artificial Organization Bastiat uses a humble carpenter  instead of the manufacturing of a pencil as a means to illustrate the complexity of relationships in the Free Market. He writes that the humble carpenter enjoys in one day goods and services that he in a life time could never come close to producing.  And all the individuals produce the goods and services he consumes not out of altruism or societal good but out of self-interest. They act because they know that Production must proceed Consumption.

  Bastiat quoted Rousseau in his Natural and artificial Organization : “Much Philosophy is needed for the correct observation of things which are in front of our eyes.” Throughout their stories Bastiat and Leonard Read help us see the “Unseen” efforts that create the abundance and variety of physical goods we are able to buy on the Free Market. They stress that they exists because individuals are free to act and enjoy their  Natural Right to their Life, Liberty andPproperty without interference from the State.

“I, Pencil” is the shortest most concise explanation of the Free Market that I’ve found. It takes less than fifteen minutes to read and it could change the way you view the world for the rest of your life.

And that’s my Take



Syrian Sanctions: Prudent Foreign Policy or Act of War?

In True nature of the State on August 22, 2011 at 2:58 pm

I agree with the French Economist Frederic Bastiat who believed that Peace is Preferable to War and the best way to ensure that Peace is through Free Trade.

The Treasury Department has declared that Syrian Petroleum products are off-limits for U.S. companies to buy. Also the Treasury Dept is seizing  Syrian assets in this country. They are doing this to spur the regime change in Syria. How can this not be construed as an act of war? And by the way when did Syria attack us?

I used to believe that  America was the good guy and “We” should keep the rest of the evil doers in the world under control, whether that was by direct military action or through economic sanctions. But I’ve come to believe that the State is the problem no matter what country it controls. So it doesn’t matter if our form of the state intervenes somewhere and limits the freedom of others or if their own version does, it is the same result: Individual’s Natural Right to Life, Liberty and Property are violated.

The goal of the current Economic Sanctions against the Syrian Regime is to limit their ability to fund the crackdown against protesters. But these dictatorial regimes are well insulated by their very nature and Economic Sanctions always fall hardest upon the individual citizens.

The true purpose of Economic Sanctions is to inflict economic pain upon a nation. But this like every action of the State is ultimately directed not at the leaders but at the people themselves. They are designed to make individuals so miserable in the target country that they will overthrow their current government. But all too often that rage at the decreasing standard of living brought about by Economic Sanctions is directed not at their leader but at the United States.

How would the citizens of the United States appreciate it if Europe decided to slap Economic Sanctions upon us to encourage the ousting of ” problem” members of Congress?  What if they targeted the Economic Sanctions at certain businesses inside of specific districts to accomplish that? What if you worked at one of those businesses?

It is tantamount to extortion. If you do what “We” (The Federal Government) want then we will stop the pain. A better description of Economic Sanctions is Economic Torture or Economic Terrorism.

I don’t believe any government has the right to limit trade between individuals. It doesn’t matter if it is in a Suburb of Chicago where a little girl has set up a lemonade stand to sell to thirsty customers or if an oil company in Houston wants to buy crude from an oil well in Syria. If you own your Property you should be able to sell it to anyone who is willing to buy it.

What if the United States allowed businesses to trade openly with North Korea or Iran today? How would that hurt the individual interests of those living in the United States? The living standard of folks in North Korea and Iran would rise and so would ours. It is a win-win. If individuals are engaged in trade they are much less likely to go to war. Why go to war if your freedom to choose how you dispose of your time and money is increasing?  Free Trade leads to more Individual Liberty.

“By virtue of exchange, one man’s prosperity is beneficial to all others.” Frederic Bastiat

By ending its Economic Sanctions against countries around the world the U.S. Federal Government would be taking a step to return Individual Liberty not only to those individuals  in those countries targeted but also here at home. This would lead to more employment because entrepreneurs would employ capital to produce goods and services to meet the need of the consumers previously deemed off-limits by the government. In order to do this they would need to hire employees and that would create jobs. 

Mutually Assured Prosperity through Free Trade is more likely to prevent countries from attacking each other than the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction.

 Etienne de La Boetie explained in “Politics of Obedience : Discourse of Voluntary Servitude” that a regime will not last long if a majority of individuals withdraw their consent. The only individuals who can do this are those individuals in Syria. We should allow the individuals in Syria to decide if they want to withdraw their consent or not.

Now if individuals around the world would like to spend their blood and treasure helping the resistance in Syria or Libya or wherever, they should have the right to do so. But they do not have the right to use the Force of the  United States Federal Government funded through the plundered property of productive citizens to accomplish their goals. Those individuals who condemn the leader of Syria and want him gone should personally support the resistance, either with their own money or with their own hands fighting alongside the rebels. But how many individuals do you see cashing in their 401ks, flying to Syria and picking up an AK-74?  

All events are preceded by ideas. The best way to enjoy Peace as an individual is for governments of the world to stop interfering with Free Trade between individuals regardless of their location.  Free Trade is predicated on the concepts of Natural Rights and the more individuals around the world enjoy their God-given right to Life, Liberty and Property without interference from any government; the more everyone in the world will enjoy prosperity.

If you want others to be free then first you must be free. Once you are free all  you can do is to become an example of what the enjoyment of freedom looks like.  You can not force someone to want to be free.

I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.” H.L. Mencken

The U.S. served as an example or an alternative to the communist system when the USSR collapsed. What example do we show the world today? The United States Federal Government was instituted to protect individuals Natural Rights but on a daily basis it violates them. Whether it does this at home through taxation and regulation  or abroad  by the dropping of bombs or by Imposing Economic Sanctions it is no defender of our God-given inalienable rights. No wonder folks around the world don’t demand that their own government stop violating their Natural Right to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Hapiness.

If you want others in the world to be free the first step is to look out your own life and ask how free are you? Our first and only task is to secure our own Natural Right to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness. In order to secure our rights we must limit the size and scope of the government in general and especially the Federal Government in this country so it is not able to violate the Natural Rights of individuals no matter where they live, whether they live in Boise or Baghdad, Denver or Damascus, Marietta or Mogadishu. The less government there is the more Liberty all individuals enjoy.

“The state tends to expand in proportion to its means of existence and to live beyond its means, and these are, in the last analysis, nothing but the substance of the people. Woe to the people that cannot limit the sphere of action of the state! Freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence, personal dignity, all vanish.” Frederic Bastiat

Economic Sanctions against any country for whatever reason should be only done defensively and as part of a declaration of war. Denying life through economic means or through physical means makes no difference both are aggressive actions that lead to the violation of individual’s Natural Right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And That’s My Take




Advocates of Liberty

In Advocates of Liberty on August 10, 2011 at 2:53 pm

These are the writers and their works that have influenced me. They are not in any particular order. These are the giants’ shoulders on which  I stand upon. All of them advocated for Individual Liberty and against State Coercion in their own way.

1. Frederic Bastiat – He was a champion of Free Trade in France during a time of rising Socialism and Protectionism. His clear arguments for our Natural Right to Life, Liberty and Property along with  his infallible refutations of Socialism make his works a must read for anyone who loves Liberty. Bastiat Collection. His most famous works.

2. Leonard Read– From the starting of the first Libertarian Think Tank (Foundation for Economic Education), to helping bring Bastiat’s works to America, to his classic pamphlet on the Free Market, “I, Pencil”, Leonard Read ranks up there with one of the greatest champions of Liberty.  Why not Try freedom a lecture he gave in the 1950’s to a group in Argentina. It is a great introduction to the Philosophy of Freedom. A libertarian Think Tank that doesn’t focus on politics. FEE’s focus is on education. I recommend attending any of their events. Their current president Lawrence Reed is a great speaker.  “Elements of Liberty Leadership” Leonard Read stressed that those who love liberty do not face a numbers problem but an education problem. This work stresses the need to learn the ins and outs of Liberty and then the methodology to share that knowledge with others. 
This pamphlet changed how I saw the world. It explains that all the things we have around us are truly miracles  of the Free Market.  His main take is that not a single person on earth can make a simple pencil and that millions of people pursuing their own self-interest have a hand in making it. Easy to understand and a great gift to give to someone who is searching for a better understanding of the Free Market.  “I, Pencil” Pamphlet. Buy a ton and give them away they are only $2.00. You never know how that simple gesture can change the world!!!

3. Frank Chodorov – He was a radical Individualist who advocated for maximum individual freedom. As a member of the Old Right he was against government intervention at home and abroad.  “Income Tax: The Root of All Evil”. Chodorov’s classic argument against the income tax. You think you hate the income tax now? Read his 1954 examination of the strangling effects of the income tax upon the individual and afterward you will really hate it.  “Taxation is Robberty” pamphlet. A brilliant and brief explanation why Taxes are theft. He stresses that all involuntary exchange of property is theft whether the State does it or if another individual does it.  He also explains how Indirect taxation, a sales tax,  is a permission to live tax. (Fair Tax falls into this category)

4. Ayn Rand –   Her writings champion the idea of the Individual rather than the Collective. Whether you like her Objectionist Philosophy or not you can’t argue against her impassioned defense of Liberty.

Her Textbook of Americanism is a short treatise meant to arm those who love Liberty with the “intellectual weapons” needed to defend Individualism vs. Collectivism.  Its only about 10 pages long but like Read’s “I, Pencil” it is packed full of  powerful and to the point observations. “Textbook of Americanisms”  Atlas Shrugged is a classic. If you haven’t read it lately read it again. The Producers around the world are beginning to “shrug”. 

Rand’s “Anthem” is a dystopian vision of a society in which Collectivism is taken to its logical conclusion, the replacement of “I” with “We”. Those ideas of Collectivism are permeating our society and it is a sobering warning of where they lead.

Or you can read it for free on Project Gutenberg. “Anthem”

5. Murray Rothbard  He was above all else Mr. Anarcho-Capitalist. He more than anyone in starting in the 1970’s  advocating  for a Stateless Society in which all goods and services including courts and police are provided on the Free Market.  He was a student of Ludwig von Mises and in many ways was his successor in defending and proliferating the ideas of Liberty and Austrian Economics. He believed in Natural Rights and his epic “Man, Economy and State” is a must read for those who think that the idea of a Stateless Society is too radical to imagine. “Man, Economy, and State”. His classic treatise on Liberty and the case for the Stateless society.

6. Ludwig Von Mises – The man who more than anyone else is responsible for the preservation and proliferation of the ideas of Austrian Economics. His Human Action  presents a case for laissez-faire capitalistic society with only a minimum limited “night-watchman’ state. He developed the science of Praxeology, the study of Human Action to base this master work upon. Human Action

7. Albert Jay Nock – I first learned about the True Nature of the State from his Classic “Our Enemy the State”.  He described himself as a philosophical anarchist and advocated for a society free of the State. “Our Enemy The State” 1922.

For those who feel like they are alone in advancing the cause of Liberty should also read his essay “Isiah’s Job”.

8. John Stuart Mill –  He believed that individuals should be free to act as long as they do not harm others. He stressed that the individual when acting peacefully in respect to others was in all respects sovereign over himself. “On Liberty”  published in 1859 is a great starting point for those who want a primer on the ideas of Liberty.

9. Henry David Thoreau  He was an individualist of the first order who prefered peaceful disobedience to unjust laws.  His classic “Resistance to Civil Government” was a blue print for Ghandi and also Martin Luther King. And i is as relevant today in resisting the tyrannical State as it was in 1848.  My favorite line from “Resistance to Civil Government” is “that government is best which governs least” and “the best government is the one that governs none at all.”  “Resistance to Civil Government” 1848.

10. Etienne de La Boetie “The Politics of Obedience : Discourse of Voluntary Servitude”  Written in 1550 or 1560, Boetie’s  main point  in his essay is that no government can long endure without the consent of a majority of the citizens.  Only a few ever govern and the many always outnumber them. That is what puzzled him.  He explains that a lot individuals consent due to force, then by habit. Others consent because of the benefits they reap from the State. It is a fascinating study of human behavior and explains how only by the consent of the many can the few rule over them. 

/ /rothbard/boetie.pdf ” The Politics of Obedience: Discourse of Voluntary Servitude”  1552/53  Murray Rothbard writes a great introduction.

John Locke  should be on here and I know he is considered by many to be the father of Classical Liberalism, or Libertarianism as we call it today.  But I have yet to finish his classic “Second treatise on Government”.

You can find it here: “Second treatise on Government”  Published 1690

And that’s my take.


Best of Bastiat – part 1

In Advocates of Liberty on August 2, 2011 at 1:28 am

Frederic Bastiat : Advocate of Free Trade and Individual Liberty

Frederic Bastiat was a Frenchman who lived from 1801 – 1850.  He was a merchant, a politician and an economist. In the last six years of his life he produced some of the greatest works defending the cause of liberty ever written.

He lived during a time like our own, where government intervention was expanding exponentially.  He devoted his life to combating the errors of Socialism and advocating for Free Trade and Individual Liberty along with his counterpart in England, Richard Cobden.

Today if you pick up his Essay “The Law” or read his famous “candle makers petition” you will find some of the most persuasive, relatable, clear arguments against coercive-destructive government intervention you will ever find.  His words are just as true today as they were in France almost 170 yrs ago.

Bastiat was a committed enemy of Socialism in all its forms. But he always relied on persuasion not personal attacks to refute those who espoused the collectivist creed.  Bastiat  built his defense of the Free Market and individual Liberty upon the unshakeable foundation of Natural Rights. His opposition to Socialism was based on the God-given rights of Life, Liberty and Property.

Bastiat’s writings are filled above all with optimism.  He truly believed that human interactions were fundamentally “harmonious” and that voluntary exchanges between individuals on the Free Market did not need any government interference.

This is how Bastiat begins “The Law”…

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.”

“The Law Perverted” … He pulls no punches. I wish more of us who love liberty would do the same. And the fact that he felt it his duty to inform his fellow-citizens is an important point. He did not rest just complaining to other like minded individuals or writing to demonstrate how smart he was. He instead strove to teach the world the blessings of Liberty and Free Trade and warn against the evils of collectivism.

Bastiat to me defines the minarchist or strictly limited government position when he wrote:

“We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

“The law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive and secure the rights of all.”

(This is the proper scope of the law whether it’s administered by private or public courts and police departments.)

In this next passage he clearly demonstrates that any government intervention into peaceful voluntary exchanges violates Natural Law.

“Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law can not organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.”

If the folks in Washington read Bastiat,  maybe they could see why their central planning and regulations could never produce prosperity.

But the Washington approach is always to promote injustice. Bastiat knew that  inherent in any attempt at “equalization ” is injustice.  He understood the perils of redistribution schemes and forced equality before there was a Soviet Union.

He wrote:

“The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.”

My favorite phrase by Bastiat describing  the law as “ plunder, organized injustice.”

That sums up what the law is today and he wrote that back in 1844!!! If you are looking for a systemized, logical, articulate defense of the free market and individual liberty and a concrete condemnation of Socialism and government intervention, check out “The Law” and other works by Frederic Bastiat, my favorite Frenchman.

And that’s my take.



You can read “The Law”  for free at

Also check out,, and for all of Bastiat’s works online for free.

FreedomLand: Exiting the world of Statism

In FreedomLand on July 28, 2011 at 9:18 am

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” Frederic Bastiat 1848

Are you a sovereign individual? That to me is the fundamental question that everyone needs to answer.  I believe that I am. But there are millions of politicians and bureaucrats and the majority of the population who disagree with me.

Of the 57,506,000 square miles of land surface on Earth none of it is free of government. Most of that land is under the control of  numerous layers of government from the city council to the United Nations and all layers in between. You can not escape the tyranny of the State over the individual. (at least not on land).

If you can not change the system, and you no longer want to submit to the system, your only other option is to exit the system.

That is what I propose to do.

I believe the quickest way to enjoy the maximum amount of Personal Liberty is within a framework of a Free Market Society. To accomplish this I propose the start of a new self-governing community 200 miles off the coast of Honduras in the Pacific ocean.

I call it FreedomLand and it is envisioned to become the freest place on Earth. A place where each individual is sovereign over his person and his property. It will be a place where each individual is responsible for himself.

It would not be a self-sufficient community. Trade with others around the world will be vital to FreedomLand. On FreedomLand there will be endless business opportunities for hearty individuals with a drive to succeed.  Those opportunities include aquaculture (fish farming)  and all its ancillary industries, financial services including banking, transplant tourism (no restriction of buying and selling organs) and tons of recreational tourism opportunities,  including installation of artificial reefs for diving.

There are no external  limits to what an individual can peacefully accomplish in FreedomLand. You may do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t restrict the right of others to do the same.  I do not envision a Utopia. Rather I envision an absence of organized theft, fraud and murder, i.e. the State. Crimes committed by individuals would still occur. Private defense corporations would sell their services to consumers in order to defend Life, Liberty and Property. All products and services in FreedomLand will be provided through voluntary exchanges between producers and consumers.

When you buy your plot of ocean in FreedomLand or work for someone who has, you will never have to waste one more minute of your life thinking about Government. How much time today have you wasted thinking about and worrying about  the Federal Government and the debt ceiling circus or  about an increase in your property taxes or being forced to get your emissions tested before getting your tag?  This is all wasted time and energy that could be spent in more productive ways.

When you live in FreedomLand all your thoughts and energies will be spent on your pursuit of happiness. No more external coercion, no more central planners, no more forced retirement savings, no more IRS scouring over ever part of your life, no restrictions on what you can put in your body, and no restrictions on the voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

This doesn’t mean that there will be freedom from responsibility. On the contrary, Responsibility and Liberty are inseparable. For with Personal  Liberty you and you alone reap the rewards as well as the risks of your actions. There are no guarantees.  These risks could be mitigated through various types of insurance. But these would be voluntary and no one would be forced to purchase these policies.

The technology exists off the shelf to launch FreedomLand. There are many different ideas for establishing a community at sea. These include mostly expensive options like huge artificial islands or retrofitting cruise ships. I think a better approach is to start small.

I believe the best way to start is to send out a buoy,  which I dub the ” Beacon of Liberty”, to stake the first claim of FreedomLand.  Later on a floating dock will be built so people can drive  their boats out to and inspect the “sea acreage”. Those who purchase their plots will more than likely live at first on their boats. The next step to support these new Seasteading Pioneers is to position a “Seed Ship” to provide, for a fee of course, power, water and other services until companies are established to provide them. (This would not preclude others individuals  from making their own power and water themselves. )

Once people have bought their plots they would be free to dispose of their property as they see fit, as long as it didn’t interfere with others from doing the same thing. Contracts would be strictly enforced through a private system of courts and arbiters.

I don’t know how  individuals will use their plot of sea. And that is the point. Who could have predicted the Ipod or wireless Broadband?  On the Free Market the entrepreneur seeks to satisfy consumer demand in the most efficient way. Those who are successful will profit and those who don’t will fail. Out of this “creative destruction”  goods and services are available for mass consumption and amazing technological advancements are made.

There is no telling what will be the result of this experiment.  Individuals will be free to choose how to exercise their God-given right to Life, Liberty and Property. And since no entity is granted “Legal Force” to confiscate property at will or regulate individual choice, human creative energy will be free from its current impediments and find its greatest expression mankind has ever known.

FreedomLand will not seek nationhood or recognition by the international community. Individuals living in FreedomLand will, in my opinion be, the most dynamic, innovative, and productive people on Earth and the citizens of other nations will be clamoring to do business with the folks in FreedomLand.

And that’s my vision


Advocate of Liberty

For more info on the viability of a community at sea check out The Seasteading Institute at