Brad Miller

Posts Tagged ‘Individualism’

Ten Pillars of Civilization

In Bitcoin, chaos, Civilization, Cryptocurrency, Freedom, Liberty, natural rights, order on March 5, 2018 at 7:53 am

Today most people have two ways of thinking about “civilization”, either it’s the Roman conquering the barbarians or its the destructive corporations raping the countryside model. Either way civilization is seen as a terrible force that imposes order on the “uncivilized” world through fraud, theft and violence.

I don’t see it in those terms. I believe that the best ideas of humanity are what create true civilization. In my opinion true civilization is brining order to chaos without the need for external authority in the pursuit of eliminating human suffering.

Civilization for me, like all things, begins with the individual. That’s why this list doesn’t include any mention of government and that’s on purpose.

The state is not the progenitor of civilization and in fact throughout history it has been antithetical to its advancement. Governments only legitimate purpose is to protect life, liberty and justly acquired property. Thus it is an outgrowth of the ten pillars of civilization.

Civilization gets a bad rap but it’s the only reason why you and I are here. Below are a list of the ten ideas and concepts that underpin civilization and make it possible.

1. Self ownership – From this we get freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of consumption, the right to privacy, the right to self-defense, and the burden of self-responsibility.

2. Private property – All justly acquired property is obtained by voluntary peaceful exchange, charity or through homesteading. Disposal of one’s property is at the discretion of the owner which includes one’s body.

3. Cleanliness – It is next to godliness, which we don’t hear this saying much any more but it’s as true as it ever was. Sanitation and the physical order of things are the foundation of a civilized life.

“Make your bed and put your house in perfect order before criticizing the world”. Jordan Peterson

4. Manners – They are a form of social cleanliness. A Simple “thank-you” or “please” go a long way in reducing social friction. Being courteous without being a pushover demonstrates respect for yourself and for others.

5. Peaceful Voluntary exchange – It is the opposite of war. When two people exchange voluntarily what the other wants both parties win. There is no need to rob my neighbor of his lawn mower that I would like to have if I can peacefully trade with him for it.

6. The Acknowledgment of suffering – Life is hard for everyone. We all suffer. Work is about the elimination of as much suffering in our own life and in the lives of those we interact with as possible.

7. Rational progress – True progress is based upon reason, wisdom, and knowledge in order to develop

new tools, processes and technologies to increase profit, quality, and beauty.

8. Charity – Charity truly begins at home. All charity requires profit from peaceful exchange and it’s always voluntary or it’s not charity. The fact is that everyone needs help at some point in their life.

9. Awe and Curiosity about the natural world – Having an understanding that we only know a tiny fraction of the universe’s secrets is vital to keep perspective and to encourage constant searching for new knowledge and wisdom about ourselves and the wider world.

10. Whole system analysis – Its easy to get lost in details and miss the bigger picture. That’s why it’s important to investigate and understand cause and effect in the widest scope possible. Listening to specialists who have specific knowledge about a specific subject is smart but considering the entire context of the situation is demonstrating wisdom.

This last pillar below is new to the history of humanity and it is what I believe will help spread true civilization to all corners of the world.

11. Peer to peer trustless networks – These cryptographically secured global person to person networks facilitate communication, value exchange and organization without the need for hierarchical institutions like banks, corporations and nation states.

This technology, based upon the concept of blockchain, which is what the Bitcoin protocol runs on, is beginning to show how it can outcompete and eventually supplant the entrenched governmental, banking and corporate interests that currently benefit from the war, fiat currency and subjugation through taxation system.

When people can be their own bank, trade with anyone around the world without regard to artificial boundaries, and vote directly on issues affecting them, the current power asymmetry in society will begin to shift away from the political rats and their cronies, back to the individual where all power originates and should reside.

Unlike what most people fear, freedom of action doesn’t endanger civilization. In fact when people are more free they are more limited, not less inhibited, because they are directly responsible for the consequences of their actions. This is a natural discipline that no government can ever hope to match in quality, severity or efficiency.

Chaos reigns when there is no peace within oneself. Chaos reigns when there is no peace between man and nature. Chaos reigns when there is no peace between man and his neighbor. The pillars of civilization help to create more peace in the world which fosters an environment in which the best qualities of humanity can flourish.

These are what I believe are the best ideas that create a more civilized world. Anyone who wants to go live in nature without any tools will quickly find that the pillars of civilization have been built for a reason. Mother Nature gives nothing for free. Work is the only answer to suffering. Peaceful exchange is superior to war.

Brad Miller

Advocate of Civilized Living

Further collectivization of healthcare will embolden the Drug War

In Medicinal Freedom, natural rights, True nature of the State on December 28, 2017 at 3:25 pm

From Ayn Rand’s Textbook of Americanism:

Individualism holds that man has unalienable rights that cannot be taken away from him by any other man, any number, group or collective of men. Therefore each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the ngroup.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality, belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man lives by permission of the group and only for sake of the group.

Our current system of healthcare is a mixture of government licensed monopolies and good ole fashioned communism. Those who advocate for a single payer healthcare system or more government intervention into the healthcare sector are asking for more communism which is another term for collectivization.

The great struggle is always between individualism versus collectivism.

If you believe in the second Amendment you also believe in individualism. If you believe that individuals have the right to consume Marijuana then you believe in individualism. If you believe the War on Drugs should be ended then you believe in Individualism.

Unfortunately the current political debate is carried out in sound bites and is meant to divide and segregate individuals into groups. That’s how collectivism works. Those groups then clamor gain the levers of power to usa

e the force of government to force others to live as they see fit. They use words like “social cost” or “societal impact” to justify limiting the choices of others.

The War on Drugs is based on the idea that social costs trump individual choice. Any rational thinking person can clearly see the horrible consequence that Drug Prohibition has caused. For most though they don’t see this as “government intervention” or the further “collectivization” of America. More government intervention into healthcare or A Single Payer healthcare system is based upon the same philosophy. Not only are they politically aligned they are inseparable.

As the government pays for (by taking from others or borrowing from future generations) more and more healthcare more and more experts will be supportive of the War on Drugs. The reason is simple, when the state pays for healthcare every individual choice becomes subject to government scrutiny.

When experts and politicians speak about Social costs or public policy you can guarantee that they are peddling the further erosion of your individual freedom. The Drug War is the biggest erosion of human liberty that we are currently living under, besides the inflationary banking system. Which coincidentally is also a mixture of monopolies and communism.

I believe that the average America who advocates for a single payer healthcare system or clamors for more government regulation of healthcare is doing so because they want a better more effective system that is also affordable. For a lot of people the Single Payer Healthcare idea is the only option they are exposed to that they believe will lead to their desired outcome.

I advocate for another alternative to the current Monopoly/Collectivist model of medicine and that is simply Medical Freedom.

Medical Freedom is the elimination of all the restrictions of individuals to purchase, grow, sell or trade in medicines that they believe will help ease their suffering or increase their wellbeing. This will allow individuals to grow their own medicines in their backyard or purchase medicines at a greatly reduced price because market forces will enter back into the healthcare system.

This is an alternative that the political class, insurance companies, the media, the big pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, the DEA, the FDA, the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services never talk about because in an atmosphere of Medical Freedom they will be deprived of their power and it will be rightfully restored back to the individual through the power of choice.

If you are against the War on Drugs and understand how destructive it is to individuals and society then you should also support the elimination of government interference in the choices individuals make regarding their health and wellbeing.

Just as we have separation of church and state, we also need the separation of medicine and state.

The Bill of Rights is based upon the philosophy of individualism. The belief that individuals have innate inalienable rights and that they own themselves. The current healthcare system and the War on Drugs are based on the idea that you don’t own yourself and that any rights you have are granted by the state. And they can be changed and altered as the political climate changes. This collectivist ideology is extremely dangerous and has led to the death of hundreds of millions by governments around the world.

I believe that deep down everyone would prefer the Freedom of choice in their healthcare decisions and their life in general. When we have Medial Freedom restores in this country the cost of medicine will plummet because individuals will be able to grow Cannabis, Poppy Plants and mushrooms in their backyard.

With a medicinal garden based around these three easily grown plants and fungi most of human ailments can be successfully treated. Physical pain is taken care of by the Poppy Plant. Inflammatory conditions can be mediated by compounds found in Cannabis and certain types of mushrooms. Emotional and existential issues along with addictions could be eased or even eliminated through the careful use of mushrooms containing psilocybin.

A backyard pharmacy would free individuals and families from relying on big pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to treat a majority of the ailments that can afflict humans. It’s not for everyone and many people including myself would want to combine the best of the homegrown natural medicines with what mankind has created. In an atmosphere of Medicinal Freedom we’ll be able to do just that.

When we have true Medicinal Freedom in this country Pharmaceutical companies will no longer be protected under their monopoly arrangement with the government. The FDA would no longer have the power to allow them to sell dangerous drugs into the marketplace. If they want to stay in business they’ll have to provide more effective, less expensive and safer drugs to compete with the homegrown variety.

More government intervention is not the answer to lowering medical costs. Increasing Medical Freedom is the answer. Ending the War on Drugs and ending the prescription restriction model of medicine is the first steps in making this a reality.

Brad Miller

Advocate of Liberty

Longevity and Liberty

In Liberty, True nature of the State on March 19, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Longevity and Liberty

What if all that we are doing to advance the cause of freedom is a waste of time? What if its an impossibility to live in an atmosphere of increased human liberty because the fear of death and the lack of experiencing enough time on Earth prevents individuals from seeing through the lies of those who champion collectivism over individualism? The current human life span of less than 80 years may not be sufficient for the majority of individuals to live long enough to see the benefits or the advantages of being more free and the dangers and futility of giving up liberty for security.

Robert Heinlein was a liberty minded master author of science fiction who explored the ideas of Liberty throughout his career. My favorite character he ever created was a very long lived man named Lazarus Long. He was born to parents who were part of a longevity project that encouraged long lived people to mate. He’s later on able to outlive his genetic gifts of his parents and make it past 2000 years old due to advanced medical treatments called “rejuvenation”. This character loved freedom and distrusted authority. He would leave a planet as soon as the population reached a sufficient number to require identification cards.

Without the fear of natural death there is a new perspective gained by humans. Lazarus when he learned that he wasn’t going to die of natural causes began making more long term plans. How many of our decisions are based on our fear of death? And how much of the ideas of collectivism exist because of this fear of death? If humans began living 200 years or 2000 years would the freedom philosophy be embraced by most humans?

I don’t know but I think that what is holding back the freedom movement may not be a “selling job” or a “numbers problem”. What if it is simply a lack of lifespan for the majority of humans to find out that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person? And that being dependent of the whims of the collective is not only dangerous but also degrading. Lazarus Long despised living on a planet where everything was given to him and wanted to leave another planet when he found out him and his follow space travelers were seen as domesticated animals by a super advanced race. Collectivist Politicians and others who worship power view the masses as domesticated animals and they promise to give us everything if we only submit to their brilliant schemes. Lazarus would rather risk death by returning to an Earth that was potentially dangerous to him and his own kind then become a pet or have everything handed to him. When people no longer have a fear of death these currently invisible chains of collectivism will begin to weight heavy on them. Lazarus understood this and that is why he always chose liberty over security because giving up liberty meant submitting and giving up his inherent rights.

Another benefit of an extended or even infinite physical human lifespan besides eliminating the fear of death will be the increased ability of humans to see patterns of history over extended time frames. Right now most humans don’t read or even care about history. They are unaware of the hundreds of millions of people murdered by collectivist nation states in the last hundred years. They are unaware of the small pockets of history in which humans had more freedom and why these epochs created the amazing level of civilization we all take for granted today. Currently those who worship the state and suckle at its teat are able to ignore or twist history to their benefit and cloak the current patterns of deceit, theft and murder that their unholy god is unleashing on humankind from the masses because people haven’t lived long enough to recognize what always happens when collectivism is chosen over individualism.

There are many factors that go into a person’s decision in choosing to believe in collectivism or to embrace individualism. I do believe that the fear of death and the inability to see long term historical patterns are two key reasons most people prefer the paternal state gaining more and more power while they accept their individual freedoms to diminish. I believe most who fall into the ranks of the collectivists are blinded by their own fear of death and their ignorance of history so they can’t see the pile of bodies and the lost potential of billions of humans because of the actions of the all powerful state throughout the history of humankind. One day physical death will be a thing of the past for humans. When that happens a majority of humans will live long enough to spot long term historical patterns with their our own eyes and see the lies that the priests of politics are peddling and totally eliminate all support for the all powerful paternal state.

Brad Miller

D-Day: Heroic Crusade or Pyrrhic Victory

In True nature of the State on June 6, 2012 at 2:51 am

Was D-Day the beginning of a Heroic Crusade to “Free Europe” or was it a Pyrrhic Victory for the United States? Did the Collectivism that grew at Home during WWII help save our Liberty or Destroy it?

Today marks the 68th anniversary of the invasion of fortress Europe by Allied forces, better known as “D-Day”.  On that day 156,000 Allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy. Over 4ooo thousand of them were killed and another 6000 were wounded. On the German side it is estimated that 4000-9000 German soldiers were killed and wounded. But that is just the beginning of the story of the Battle of Normandy.

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy.

Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.

Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.

The men who died on those beaches deserve to be commended. If you want an accurate picture of what happened on those bloody beaches you should definitely watch Saving Private Ryan. It is an incredible movie that shows in gruesome detail the horrors of war and how bodies, minds and lives are shattered by it. Today there will be plenty of pundits speaking of how “America” saved Europe and how D-Day demonstrates what a Nation can accomplish when it pulls together for a common cause. But when we look at a single battle, like the Battle of Normandy, we fail to see the big picture of why the war  was actually fought and what was accomplished by all the bloodshed.

While soldiers were dying overseas the United States Federal Government was growing exponentially at Home. The New Deal was being solidified and the American people were becoming more and more accepting of Government Control over their daily lives.  John T Flynn called this growing intervention of the Feds into the private sector as “the Good Fascism” as opposed to “the bad Fascism of the Nazis.” This growing Central Planning of individual’s lives by the bureaucrats in Washington and the growing alliance of Big Government and Big Business was not considered by most Americas to be the “bad Fascism of the Nazis.” But what is ironic is that at the core of what the soldiers were fighting and dying to eradicate on the beaches of Normandy, was actually growing at home with every ship built,  with every ration cared issued and with every soldier drafted.

When an individual is “drafted” to go to war he is no longer a free man. He is a killing tool of the ruling class. He has no more free will, he must go to where they tell him and kill who they tell him kill or he will be imprisoned or killed. The Draft plain and simple is a form of slavery. Daniel Webster spoke out against the first proposed draft in the U.S. for the war of 1812:

“Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house & home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests & abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps & abhors, less from the danger & the death that gathers over them, & the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin..”

He argued that if a man’s life and property are at stake he will defend it. There is no need to “draft” him. It is only in wars of aggression and conquest does a Government resort to conscription. And it’s not only the soldiers who are conscripted by the State during war.

Under the aegis of war the State takes control of all “vital resource” and “rations” them out to the populace. The U.S. Office of Price Administration (OPA) in 1942 froze prices in the U.S. on practically all everyday goods and rationed gas, food, shoes, tires and most items individuals needed or wanted to buy. It was done so everyone got their fair share.  This type of “Collectivist” thinking has pervaded American political thought ever since. It is during times of war Individualism is suppressed and the Collective is raised above all. The individual must give up his freedom to the Government Central Planners so they will ensure that  “everyone gets their fair share”.

I don’t like the term fair share but let’s examine  using their terminology of the time to see who really received their “fair share” during WWII.  Did the boys who died on the Beaches of Normandy or those unfortunate souls on the Bataan Death March get their fair share? Did all the wives, sisters, and moms who would never see their loved ones again get their fair share? Did the hundreds of thousands of wounded men who came home after the war ended get their fair share? Did the masses of individuals at home who lost almost all control over their daily lives for four years get their fair share?

The Politicians, the bureaucrats, the Bankers, all manner of manufacturers who sold to the Government, and the merchants of death  got more than their Fair share. They stayed at home and made huge profits while others suffered imeasurable physical and emotional pain. How many of the politicians and bankers and merchants of death were shot and killed on the Beaches of Normandy or were marched to death in the jungles of the Philipines?  Like Smedley Butler, a two-time Medal of Honor Winner wrote “War is a Racket”. And that is exactly why it is waged.

Today we live in an ever-increasing Collectivist society at home and the American Government’s foreign policy abroad can only be described as Imperialistic. Did the men on D-Day die so that the U.S. Federal Government could accrue 16 trillion in debt? Did the men die on D-Day so that Amish folks and others can’t buy unpasteurized milk? Did the men die on the beaches of Normandy so that the U.S. Government can oust any Middle Eastern Leader it wants to? Did the men did on D-Day so that over 50% of your income today is stolen from you at the point of a gun? Did the men die on the beaches of Normandy so that you have to live in fear that the Small Arms treaty being considered in the U.N. will deny  your God-given right to “bear arms” ? Did the men on D-Day die so that the U.S. dollar would be destroyed by the printing presses of the Federal Reserve? Did the men on D-Day die so that the U.S. military could have 900 military installations around the world? Did the men die on the beaches of Normandy so the U.S. President could compile a secret kill list of individuals including U.S. citizens and assassinate them anywhere around the world at will? Did the men on D-Day die so the U.S. Government would “Abandon the Free Enterprise system to save it” ?

WWII set the stage for the Leviathan that we are suffering under today. The Last Great War was fought not to make the world safe for individual liberty or even for democracy. It was waged  to benefit the bankers, the war profiteers, and the politicians. While the soldiers and their families paid the horrific price in blood on the battle field and broken hearts at home.  And we are still today paying for those war profits from WWII. That debt has never been paid off. When we honor those who have fallen let us not forget that it is always politicians who start the wars and it is always the citizens, who generation after generation pay the price.

As Ayn Rand wrote either a Society is based upon the principles of Collectivism or that of Individualism. This country was founded on the principles of Individualism. That is a belief that every person has the inalienable right to their life, liberty and property and that no man or group of men have the right to take it away. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Crony Capitalism, are all forms of Collectivism. And Its basic tenet is that man has no rights ; that his work, his body, and his personality belong to the group, the group can do with him what it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides is in its best interest. And that is exactly what happened in WWII to the soldiers sent to Europe and the Pacific and to the citizenry at home.

WWII did not make us any freer. It only ended up enslaving us even more to the Federal Government. FDR wanted WWII, in particular to benefit the Rockefeller in the Pacific and Morgans  in Europe. FDR knew that the attacks on Pearl Harbor were going to happen, he forced the Japanese to attack and welcomed it. The Battle for Normandy occurred mainly because the Banking Houses wanted to protect their investments overseas. That is not something that will be taught in school and it wasn’t something Ronald Reagan spoke about during his famous speech on the beeches of Normandy.

All Governments will  use ever pretext especially War to further impoverish, maim, kill and enslave individuals under their dominion. That is why I advocate for the elimination of the State as we know it and to live in what is commonly called and an Anarcho-Capitalist Society. This type of Society is  based upon the principles of Individualism, Natural Justice and Voluntary Contracts. Every function that is handled by Government today including defense would be provided on the “Free Market”.  Only then would we see an end to  Perpetual War.

” I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present”
William Loyd Garrison

The baby today is freedom. The fire is the American Government consuming everything in its path. Now is the time to turn back the tide of collectivism at home, return Individual Liberty back to America and peaceful trade with the rest of the world.

And That’s my Take
Brad Miller

AdvocateofLiberty and Peace

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”.

Fear of Individuality leads to Collectivism

In True nature of the State on December 7, 2011 at 1:26 am

The fear of being dependent on oneself to survive and thrive in this world leads a lot of folks to turn to the ever welcoming arms of the collectivists. They promise an end to the fear of want and more importantly the fear of making decisions for oneself and living with those consequences.

Rand believed that people embraced collectivism because they were convinced that altruism or sacrificing oneself for others was moral. Stated differently, the individuals who bought into the collectivist creed believe that individuals should live for others not themselves.

But why do they believe this? I propose that it is because they allow fear to destroy their ability to think, decide and act. upon there own judgement. They want to rely on others because they’ve loss their faith in themselves and fear rules their lives. We are all born into the world naked and hungry. There is nothing promised by the world to us. We must work to live or someone else must work to sustain us. Mises wrote about the disutility of labor. But I believe that the disutility of labor isn’t a factor when individuals trust themselves and understand that work and expenditure of their life will lead to an improvement of that life. That is also a paradox of Collectivism. People clamor for it because they feel what they are no capable of making the correct decisions to live a happy life. Their goals are going unfullfilled.  But soon they find under Collectivist micro mangaement of their lives that no matter how hard they work it doesn’t matter. So they are in the same boat or even worse than before becasuse at least before they had a chance to change their behavior but now they are locked in the static world of the Collective.

Individualism is simply and ideology that states you are a whole separate entity from anyone else. Only you can think act and decide how best to live for yourself. Its a scary thing. IWe all would love to have someone tell us the future and tell us which actions will be successful and which will fail. which line of work is best for us. But no one knows that. If you believe in Inidividualism you must beleive that you will figure it out. You must believe that you can overcome your fear of the unknown or at least make friends with your fear and improve your lot in life. The Collectivist with their projetctions and five year plans act like they know the future. It is very comforting to those who have not habitually overcoem their fears.

We’ve been raised in a prison school system, told that paying taxes are patriotic and the world is full of terrorists ready to kill all of us at any time. Why wouldn’t individuals taught by government propagandists (teachers) believe that individual choice and preference is wrong and that an individual should allow others, meaning the government to make their choices for them?

How can anyone blame an individual who has accepted the idea that he needs to pay his fair share, or otherwise he’s a “bad American” understand that the dollars that the government steals from him limit his ability to express his individuality, and severely limit his choices in life?

How can you blame an individual who is told constantly by the Feds that terrorists are everywhere and are going to kill us all if they don’t wage more wars and destroy his liberty at home. They are just doing this to protect him. Right?

Fear is a motivator that can lead a rational human being to give into the collectivist creed without knowing it. They are taught the only way to assuage this fear is to sacrifice themselves to the collective and everything will be okay. There will be no more fear becasue the Ruling Elite are omnipotent and omnipresent.  But the reality is that the taxes they take are never enough to take care of everyone’s needs, scarcity still exists, and they never end the wars because they are manufactured and perpetrtaed by the government.  If individuals took responsibility for their own fears and desires there would be no collectivist preacher or politician who could sway them.

What would be their argument to a man who is driven, determined, passionate, responsible, honest and hard-working? A man who pursues his definition of happiness and doesn’t violate the rights of others in the process. They would tell him that his sacrifice is needed to help the one’s who can’t help themselves. His fear of being ostracised by his peers could lead him to the sacrifical altar of the State. This is prevelant among industrialists and capitalists in this country. So even men who don’t have any other need give into fear of being seen as an uncaring man by others. This fear is a powerful tool.

We rail against the political machine. We rail against collectivism. The only way to stop individuals from trending toward collectivism because of fear is to masater fear. Fear will always be with every human being on Earth. Fear arises from scarciy. Collectivism claims to end the Natural Law of Scarcity that’s why folks jump on board. But only when individualists pursue their lives and passions according to their philosophy of Liberty will those who claim to offer a utopia free of fear will be seen as hucksters really selling a world consumed by fear.

Dont’ let fear move you to place wher your  fate is the hands of others.