If somebody is forcing their will on us, clearly, we are not free. So perhaps it is helpful to think of freedom not as a substance, but as an ideal state of social harmony in which no one is forcing their will on anyone else. A violation of freedom is an attack on a particular victim whose will is being forcibly hindered by taking their life, stealing their property, or threatening them with assault. Freedom is not just an ideal state of society, but a moral code for respecting the rights of others.
Self-ownership is an integral part of being human. You own yourself. You own your body. You own your labor. For anyone to assert otherwise is to attempt to restrict your freedom or make you a slave.
Because you own yourself, it is wrong for someone to initiate force against you or your property. Acceptance of this simple fact is the foundation of a free and peaceful society. This universal non-aggression principle applies to everyone, and it is therefore wrong to kill, injure, assault, steal from, or threaten another person. Anyone who directly violates others, supports the violation of others, or violates others on behalf of someone else is holding us back from achieving our potential through the harmonious and mutually beneficial transactions that take place in freedom.
Chapter 1 Section I FREEDOM! by Adam Kokesh
I am the author of FREEDOM!, a book endorsed (I mean banned) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy here. I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more here. I am currently on my #TaxationIsTheft tour! You can find an event near you here. Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me a message with their address.
Recognition and enforcement of private property on a planet of finite land without due compensation for the loss of what was once commonly owned is a fundamental violation of the NAP. You can't say that choking someone is violence but sucking up all the air into a giant vacuum to sell to people in exchange for work isn't.
There is no true freedom without unconditional basic income, so I hope you include a chapter on it. Or else you fully support forcing the propertyless to work for those with property in exchange for their continued existence.
I agree with your statement that "Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you." But without basic income, that will never be accomplished for everyone.
I think the argument put forth here by Pettit is far stronger:
That you wish to entirely eliminate the US government and are on a tour about how "all taxation is theft" tells me you're far more concerned about paying no taxes than you are about guaranteeing freedom for all.
Freedom actually has nothing to do with income. In true freedom no one owes you anything. They also cannot force anything upon you. This does not mean we cannot voluntarily assist each other. We tend to do this naturally when we do not have a force pitting us against each other. Universal Basic Incomes biggest flaw is if it is strapped to anything resembling a government. The government doesn't produce anything except wars, and waste. It has no product of it's own. I suppose you could consider laws/rules (aka forcing the will of one or more people upon others) as a product of government as well. We are nearing a time where technology may prove sufficient to offer something like UBI without the need of a government. I wrote about that as part of my optimistic view of the future, and I likely touched upon it as well in my more pessimistic/realistic thoughts on the future. I know I've spoken about UBI in other posts. I am very much a voluntaryist. I believe in applying and adhering to the NAP as closely as I can, but I also realize that I must take a larger view as some people may move against me from far away and gain momentum and by the time they get close enough to me to see them it would be too late to defend myself. This is a challenge. One thing we don't want is the government doing UBI. They can only accomplish that by debt, or by forcing others to pay for it. They literally have no other way of doing it. Government cannot give you anything for free. Someone pays.
Actually there is another way. It's called the Alaska Model.
You keep mentioning Alaska. The checks people get paid there yearly is a small fraction, like 1/10th or 1/12th of what would actually be needed to pay for people's basic needs. That's completely ignoring all the other economic problems involved too.
This is interesting. I gave it a cursory look, but want to give it a more in depth look and let it bounce around in my head for awhile before I commit. Initially the idea of a Tax implies a government. Tax is force. It is not something you can voluntarily choose not to pay without being penalized, thrown in jail, or possibly killed in the process. It is therefore force. It may be coercive force for the most part until resisted, but it is not voluntary and it is force. So having taxation as a component implies a force. It also still IS forcing others to pay for it. So it's not really different. Just a different form of taxation.
Though there is some interesting ideas in the document so like I said I do want to read it in more depth and give it a chance to SINK IN. I may change my mind. ;)
Please do read it. It's collectivist garbage. The basic economic principles still apply. There's no way to get what they want without someone paying for it. They want the "rich" to pay for it. That's the "solution."
They want to take from some to give to others. It really is that simple. I'm "rich" because I worked my ass off all my life to be successful. I don't "deserve" my wealth. All those people around me living in debt and way beyong their means who have never worked hard to learn a valuable skill in the market? Nah, they deserve better. I need to pay them....
Yeah, right.
Yeah, I do intend to read it again today. I suspected that was likely to be the case as soon as it started seeming to head those routes and especially when it started relying upon taxation. Yet, I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt until I read it and thought about it for awhile as it does have some new perspectives I've not seen before. Thus, I need to let those new ideas sift around for a bit in my head.
Wow, opt out and voluntary, ehh? I'll have to ask my brother-in-law, who's a tax attorney for the IRS, about that. He'll have a hearty laugh.
No kidding.
I am not. Yet I do think you may be. Which is why I haven't bothered to respond in depth to you.
You are choosing to interpret in a light that allows you to attack rather than trying to consider what a person may be saying that would not make that a negative.
You see. You painted it as EXACTLY the opposite of why I stated it.
I stated it so I was clear that I can be wrong, and thus like any human might change my mind. ;) I also made it pretty clear there was some new stuff in the document I wanted to think about for awhile.
So you want to free yourself - by stealing from others? Noble.
The oxygen must be pretty thin up there in Alaska. You feeling light headed?
Is Judge Anna's work what the sovereign citizen movement come from?
Option 3; Im asking because I don't know anything about it aside from some people talking about it recently. Since you provided the links i am assuming you do know, hence im asking you.
You seem more concerned of loosing the violence of the state, to force your will on others, that about letting all people be free.
Nope. I believe no one should be able to force their will on others, and that everyone should be free. You just appear to believe that anything done by the state is violence.
I recommend living in Alaska for a year so as to qualify for the Alaskan dividend, so you can honestly tell me all about the horrible violence of money forced upon you the following year that increases your ability to say no to other people who would otherwise try to take advantage of the increased economic insecurity that would exist without that increased income.
Oh no! An oil company is effectively paying you for the right to drill in your land! What violence!
By the way, here's why Hayek supported UBI.
Successful private corporations lease land from the state of Alaska, they make a profit, and the money earned from those leases is put into a fund to give to people as a bonus each year. It's about 2K a year currently.
Let me repeat that first fact. It's a private corporation. You know what I mean. Those evil capitalists are making hand over fist in profits from a successful business! Clearly, we should use that as a model for government provided universal income, right? LOL
2K isn't even close to enough. The money is provided through a fund. That fund wouldn't work at the amounts needed to actually give universal income. You all know that though, and you would simple demand/force the corporation to pay more.
Guess what happens though? You end up with a situation like Venezuela.
Again, you guys don't understand basic economics. Nothing is free. Hell, oil prices fluctuate horribly anyway, so basing any payment system off that would not work. The fund Alaska uses:
"Our current portfolio includes global bond, stock and real estate investments, private equity, infrastructure, multi-asset funds and hedge funds," --Laura Achee
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5wdb/only-state-free-money-alaska
Did you even research the concept before trying to use it as your primary argument for universal income? I suspect you did not. In case you still do not understand, let me break it down for you.
That model will not work for universal income, and everyone here knows it. Therefore, how would you propose to expand your plan to make it work? More "rent" charges to corporations perhaps? Maybe you'd raise the price of other corporate provided goods too?
Hell, let's raise the prices of all goods brought to market by 10%, and then use that 10% to pay the poor people. Sure, that'll work...
dude drop mic!
What if you don't want the oil company to drill in your land. And you don't want the money either.
(Edit; More explanation )
It looks as if the state in this one stood up for the people against the big oil companies, but if you look a little bit further, you see it for what it is.
If you don't want the oil company drilling on your land, (for whatever valid reason under which one is, that it is your land and another you don't want it spoiled) And all your neighbours accepted the bribe of the government (ofcourse they accepted they bribe of the oil company), they will attack you. The level of greed in those who take the bribe, the so called "free money" is way higher as the level of greed from those who don't want the oil company to ruin their land with tar sand or (shale gas - as is here the case)
In other words
The way for oil companies to get excess to your land is by telling your neighbours, that you are the one who is preventing them to get free money, and they do that via government. And those in government have their positions of power secured.
Yep, it's hush money in one sense. It's pennies compared to what the companies are making too.
I'm not talking about greed for using resources.
Or greed of the oil companies or government.
I'm talking about the poisoning of interpersonal relationships, bringing out the worst in people, which I find truly sad to notice, I wish for it to be different and work towards that
I'm not talking about evil tar sands. I took that as an example where some people might have concerns on which I may not agree, but I validate them.
And it is mostly not one person who is, what you call an asshole but more people, and calling them assholes does not make them one.
What is the nature of the state according to you? Co-operation? Giving advise to people on how they can better life in peace together? Doing suggestions on how to get along with others? Learning people how to resolve conflicts?
Or maybe you say this is BS, the nature of the state is ............ and I like it because of ..........
Basic income, along with all other state welfare, is literally putting a gun to some people's heads to pay for other people's stuff. That has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberty. You're not kidding anyone.
I don't think you understand what "literally" means. I also don't think you understand what basic income means.
The closest thing in the world to basic income is in Alaska, where every resident gets a check every year as their share of the natural resources. You know, natural resources, as in the shit no one made, but someone calls dibs on.
So is your argument that the oil companies have a gun to their head? Because that would be as stupid as saying that you'd be pointing a gun at someone's head if they asked to drill in your backyard for oil, and you both voluntarily agreed to drilling terms where they paid you for the right to drill. It's negotiating a voluntary contract, and what the oil companies in Alaska pay to drill is the up front cost of doing business, not a tax.
Don't be a fool. If you lived in Alaska, would you turn down your dividend as being state welfare? Would you feel your individual liberty had decreased every time you cashed your dividend check?
Do you currently turn down every tax credit offered to you as being welfare? Because it is. Giving you $1,000 in tax credits is the same thing as not lowering your taxes but providing you $1,000 in cash. I doubt you have a problem with tax credits, and I definitely doubt anyone has ever literally put a gun to your head.
You're a funny guy and you're trying too hard here.
Yes, I do know what literally means. I was talking about taxes. If I refuse to have my wages stolen from me, men with guns will eventually come. If I resist, they will kill me. You know this too, but you pretend to be a know it all on the Internet. /golfclap
Oh, and the reason I called you a funny guy is because you clearly don't understand economics, but that's to be expected for someone with your beliefs.
How do you think that oil is taken out of the ground in Alaska? Do you think it magically appears on the market to be sold for profit? No, it does not.
Yes, the state has a surplus, and the people living there get small checks yearly as a share of the profit. That oil gets to market though through a ton of people actually working. They don't sit home collecting universal income checks.
Speaking again of those checks, the Alaskan ones are not enough to live off of for the entire year. Instead, it is a bonus. To provide people with full universal income, you would have to TAX others instead of simply rely on oil profits.
Oil profits I might add are WAY down these days. You knew that already though, right? Entire nation states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia have had to completely rework their economies because of the drastic changes lower in oil.
Again, you're so funny... 40% of my income is stolen every year to be given to other people, and you try to suggest I should be happy with child and other tiny credits. That's brilliant!
Hey buddy, I'm going to rob you today, but don't worry. I'll leave you with $5 bucks for the metro. Oh, you have a child? Okay, here's $5 more. Now, give me the money, or you go to prison. Resist? You're dead, mister.
You literally don't understand basic economics. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere, has to pay for what is given out through welfare.
If socialists understood economics, they'd be capitalists.
Yes, if they also had the correct definition of capitalism. Unfortunately they tend to lump any social issues they see in with the term. Capital is considered the poison causing all the ills. Being anti-capitalist then, to such people, means simply to be against everything that's bad...
What's peaceful about taking, by force, from some to pay others? You people crack me up.
Using your line of language all extortion fees are paid voluntarily, correct? So is intercourse under threat of having your throat cut, right?
"Voluntary" normally (when not explicitly pointing out the specifics) means different things depending on context, as it then should. The common theme with anti-capitalists is that they confuse the proper uses in these contexts - such as the difference between discussing free will and it's narrow practical defence in the legal realm - and that they strawman the anarcho-capitalist position as being one for a society where no positive moral or contractual considerations are given to the poor, the weak or the person currently residing on someone else's property.
There is no universal basic income. How can I prove what does not exist?
Are you talking about taxes in general? Every year the IRS sends me corrections to my taxes. Every year, if I do not pay those corrected amounts, they will garnish my wages to get them.
I cannot keep my job without paying taxes. Remember Peter Schiff's father? He went to jail because of taxes. Countless other people do too.
Sure, there are ways to fight the system, but it is VERY difficult to avoid income taxes these days.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove though. You think UBI should be given by government, and you think giving it is all voluntary?
Taking from corporations and "rich" individuals to pay UBI to others will not be voluntary. It will be mandatory. It will be a "do it or else" scenario.
All of you "free men" are always so cocky. You think just because you supposedly beat some court issue, probably simply because you were not worth the judges time to bother with, you think everyone else should do the same? You also think because of what happened to you, it should also be the same for others?
I was sued once in court by a thief. He used the court system against me to steal. I fought him as much as I could, but guess what? He still won. Then what happened? The courts GARNISHED MY WAGES.
There was no way for me to ignore the courts as you and people like you suggest. I was going to be robbed, and that was the end of it. If I didn't pay, I would have lost my job, etc.
You're delusional. Seriously, you are out of touch with reality.
You cant have a basic income, without a government administration, and taxes.
Taxes are coerced, with a threats of force, and even violence.
If you can't get past that basic truth, it's makes subsequent arguments void.
On a side note, paying no taxes would mean a lot more freedom for all, anyway
sorry.
They'll wield the one ring and do good with it! har har
honest, guv
Accurate. Concise.
Your intellectual strength, and literary ability is great.
Your naivety is exceptional.
you will be hard pressed to find an argument that actually demonstrates people being forced to pay taxes.
Seriously ...?
Forget arguments ' demonstrating' anything.
Lets look at the reality of civilizations, with governments, and bureaucracy -since roman times-? of forced taxation...and work from that...
You will be hard pressed to find a reality that actually demonstrates people not being forced, into paying taxes.
Firstly, my friend, I don't see someones naivety as a negative.
Quite the opposite to be honest.
So to be exceptional in a quality I see as positive, is hardly disrespectful.
(you see it as negative quality?)
I showed nothing BUT respect for your intellect and literary expression. ('great' is a sign of respect by my definition).
Your reply demands a full answer - which I don't have time to give, right now - it Il'l reply to it when I have time.
So please don't feel disrespected.
It was your interpretation, not my meaning.
I apologize if I wasn't as eloquent as yourself, and my words were misconstrued.
Better to meet as equals, rather than you as a notional victim. (of disrespect), I'm sure you would agree.
be right back !
Cheers, matey
Freedom of choice is essential to living a free life, every form of currency ,even crypto, enhances or limits our choices, Governments need to be minimized, eliminating Government all together is very problematic. Security is self serving. Lack of opportunity is a lack of financial freedom, lack of choice or direction. Governments are similar to parasites, all built on slaver and stolen resources as through out all of history.Taxation started to pay for wars, to fund and support war criminals in support of a war industry that is ongoing, this is why the military industrial complex is as complex as it is and has not stopped, and many not ever stop, there is an actual military based on the Moon and Mars, then it goes to exopolitics, taxation used to finance the war effort to be used against humanity instead of benefit,wars that were funded by both sides, every where there is a Central bank, every country that does not have a Central bank is attacked, the Central bank and the Fed are the free market, there were less taxes, taxes create infrastructure, the tax burden shifted to the working class, there would be way more prosperity and less disparity. Multinationalist corporations play a huge role included with corruption. Big corporations get out of paying any tax, and any set up non profits as not to pay tax in international deals. Basic income is from the tax base, taxation is forced communism. The basic wage in itself is forced communism, people may live with less, every time a leader offers his patriarch people a gold standard of living the leaders gets snuffed out, by the ones connected to Central Authority,when did communism under the war machine ever work? this article is another step to actual solutions. American Freedom is an illusion most people in the world look to.The road to Utopia is flooded at the moment. Freedom has different meanings to different people. There is not one free human on earth, freedom itself is an illusion, a necessary one.
What property is commonly owned? You mean owned by the government? Heard of the Tragedy of the Commons?
How will you take ownership your basic income if you don't believe in private property? Is money not property? Was it cash that was previously 'commonly owned'.
You are violating the NAP by advocating for theft, just to pay your living expenses? lol
Adults, all consented, and it's voluntary? Then other people should mind their own business. I'm so tired of rulers and those who force rulers on others. How do we, those who reject rulers, find a way to coexist with those who demand a ruler?
It is a question of a lifetime. I'm not sure if there's a good answer either. If anyone can find it though, it will be freedom loving intellectuals such as you, Adam. I'm thankful to have you as a friend and wish you the best in all your endeavors!
"Nobody forces Rules on anyone, it's counter to the Maxim or Law,"
Your ability to get out of a ticket doesn't relate to nobody forcing rules on anyone. We have rules about rules, all forced on us. Arbitrarily low speed limits, plants that, in quantity, become a felony to own, rules where a difference in 1mm in blade length get you sent to jail. Are you suggesting none of these rules are forced on us?
Hence why cryptocurrencies will be one part to this idea of "freedom"
Cause goverment cannot put their greedy fingers inside and their loose tracking of citizen's funding and payments...old principle of ''follow the money'' tactics(patriot act and hommeland security)
Really enjoyed your lecture last night in Columbus, I hope the rest of the tour goes well!! Will send you my thoughts when done reading the book.
yes i agree . what you said is true that freedom is owning yourself and not anybody forcing you of doing what they want you to do.
Kinda sad that freedom has to be explained.
Anyway, you do a great job explaining it! Upvoted.
Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you. Everyone inherently recognizes this as a good thing because we all value our power to make decisions. We all value making decisions without being threatened. Unfortunately, most of us have not taken the time to consider the precise nature of freedom and its foundation in universal undeniable principles. Applying those principles to big issues may be complicated, but the concept of freedom is not. When applied consistently, it shows the way to a more harmonious society.
I wish you freedom!
Namaste
@adamkokesh Incredibly pleasant completion of article! Beloved the photographs and outline..
@adamkokesh Thanks for your work as well!