"Meaningless" Life Without God

"As soon as we imagine someone who is responsible for our being thus, and thus, etc, (God, nature), and therefore attribute to him the intention that we should exist and be happy or wretched, we corrupt for ourselves the innocence of becoming."

-Nietzsche, The Will To Power

At the heart of what I believe is that you cannot tell a person that they have a moral obligation to enjoy a painting. The fact that you enjoy the work of art in itself is what makes it beautiful.

I am often asked questions along the lines of "without god isn't life meaningless?"

Yes I suppose by a certain definition without God life is meaningless, that does not mean it cannot be beautiful and full.

The meaning of life is not to be moral. I believe this a common mistake by many people.  They believe that morality and "meaning" go hand in hand but they are two very separate things.  Morality is codes of ethical and enforceable behavior rooted in the nature of human beings. Surely if you simply restrain yourself from killing people that doesn't mean that you life is now meaningful.  Someone who does claim that morality and meaning are one in the same is clearly stating that they believe obedience is the meaning of their life.

However there is no universal meaning to life. There is simply a standard that many of us desire: happiness.

So really when someone asks "but isn't life meaningless without god?" or "isn't life depressing without a loving god?" Well that these people are really saying is that they don't know how to enjoy life unless they are told that they should enjoy it.

Does someone have to tell you to enjoy a painting or a work of art?

The same principle goes for life. Understand it and enjoy it, or don't if you want to, that's fine. You don't have to enjoy life. Most of us simply want to. And there are certain ways to do that, just like there is certain ways to eat healthy.

I truly find it sad when people think life is depressing and useless simply because they don't feel that they have been given permission to enjoy it.

5) Anarchist Essays: Defending Economic Freedom

I am sure that something that has been bothering you this whole time is "what is your solution to all these problems?" my answer: Economics.

I am an Anarcho-Capitalist or Libertarian Anarchist and I relate best to the Austrian School of Economics of Von Mises and Rothbard as opposed to the Chicago School of Milton Friedman.I believe that there is nothing government does that economics cannot do better.  Surely at this point there are many questions that arise in your mind "who will help the poor" "who will provide protection" "won't just more governments arise in an anarchist society?".  In one essay I am not even going to try and attempt to advocate what a society of millions if not billions of people and all of their individual interests would look like.  However there are many people who have invested hours upon hours into answering some of the move basic questions people have.  The people I have read the most of are Murray Rothbard, David Friedman and my favorite Stefan Molyneux.  You can go to Stefan's site Freedomain Radio to have a quick resource to some of these questions. For a basic outline please read the article The Stateless Society by Stefan Molyneux.  However as for me I am simply going to go over some basic premises and information to hopefully give you some basic faith in capitalism.

Nature of Economics

Economics are an extension of human interests and needs, because a business cannot survive unless it is providing some kind of use to people.  Thus it is constantly adapting to human needs.  As opposed to government which is always trying to adapt people its needs by means of manipulation (patriotism, loyalty).  The free market asks for no loyalty except for what benefits you best.

Perhaps it can be said that the free market can profit from manipulation as well.  This is true, however businesses are much more likely to be punished for this then government and competition tends to reduce this.  But ultimately people are free to be manipulated if they choose to be.  Capitalism thrives of product with minimal manipulation, government thrives of manipulation, with as little product as possible.

Nature of Government

Once the government is introduced into the free-market it is no longer a representation of peoples interests, but some people gaining advantage over others with the force of government violence.  For example: If am an older carpenter and I don't want to compete with younger carpenters what would I need to do? Create a union, lobby the government to so everyone has to join your union, and then make it so that everyone that joins your union has to be an apprentice.

What was once an accurate description of peoples interest is now some people gaining interest over others with the force of violence.

When we have a state with a monopoly on violence, is considered moral, requires loyalty (patriotism) and has no competition you can expect nothing but corruption and abuse of power. We have given one group of people all the guns, and all the rights to use them that we don't have, and now we simply hope that they choose to protect us. To an extent, they will protect us but only because there are more of us then there are of them and they need to maintain a minimal amount of legitimacy as possible, as all tyranny does.

In the days of dictatorship people where threatened by violence directly, and the parasitical relationship between government and man was more then obvious.  Now however government is forced to take a different approach.  The threat of violence and death is the same, how ever government projects it to out side sources such as "global warming" "terrorism" "communism" "illegal Immigrants" "the greedy corporations" etc... These are all threats of government.  Threats of death and violence, but simply projected to other sources.  But it is really the government quietly saying "you see? this is why you need us".

Lies About Capitalism

Never in history has their been a correlation between less government power and a greater gap between the rich and the poor. In fact the opposite has always been true. There has yet to be a successful state program that have helped the bridge this gap.  It is only in the free society where the middle class have thrived.  Capitalism has been far more successful when it comes to helping the poor then any do-gooder socialist or communist government has even gotten remotely close to.

Yet no one cares. There is no evidence to support the claims of socialist and communists yet they still claim a moral high ground though their ideas have brought nothing but mass murder and subsidized poverty.

Why?  Because people believe socialism and communism are moral.  Even most champions of capitalism claim "oh I suppose socialism would be better but capitalism is what works".  We must let go of this concept.  Capitalism is the most moral. All others require subjective morality and no respect for individual human beings and their complex interests.

You can make your assertions that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer under a free society how ever any of those assertions are utterly unfounded.

Lies About The Industrial Revolution

It is true that if went back to the 19th century we would probably find its conditions to be fairly unsuitable.  And form this we assume that the 19th century during the industrial revolution was a very bad time.  However what we need to compare the 19th century to the 18th if we are to truly understand the effects of the industrial revolution.

The fact of the matter is that during the 19th century death rates fell, saving of workers increased, as well as the overall quality of life.  Most socialist will claim that this was because of state regulations how ever the evidence indicates that legislation came after the progress.

You cannot look at the immature state of the economy during the industrial revolution, frame it, and then call it capitalism.  Say what you will but it is not my belief that the only reason we are more prosperous now because the government started pointing more guns and regulating the free market. That has been tried many times before with very different results. It is was the growing economy that has brought us our prosperity.

Lies about Welfare

After the post war period poverty was dropping by about 1% a year, how ever as soon as "the war on poverty" was launched this came to an abrupt end. Ultimately government welfare is nothing more but subsidized poverty. You cannot expect poverty rates to go down when you pay people to be poor, especially when this is done by the government.

Exactly what motivation do the people that work for the welfare department of any government have to fix poverty?  If they do magically fix poverty by paying people to be poor then 100's of thousands of people will be with out a job.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but it seems to me that the real purpose of the welfare programs is for the government to manipulate its people. If they can pay people to be poor then they will always have the poor as a reason why the government must exist.  Using the age old argument "there are poor people, therefore the government must exist". Not to mention that there are now thousands of people working for the state who would lose their job if the poor no longer existed or was not a significant problem.  Ultimately creating a mess that will never go away until the state collapses.

Conclusion

I am very well aware that I probably have not answer every one of your questions in this article nor do I plan to.  Some people have devoted much more time to the subject then I and can explain it much better, perhaps someday I will be there but for now this is what you are going to get from me.  Once again I would suggest that you read the article by Stefan Molyneux called The Stateless Society.  I believe it is a basic and fairly quick read to give you some idea on how such a society would work. But really to truly understand it is quite impossible, I nor anyone else can speak for the complex and individual interests of millions of people.  How ever there are basic principles that we can work with and try to understand.  I simply hope that I have established some faith in capitalism, and human beings being able to manage them selves by means of voluntary contracts.

4) Anarchist Essays: Government

Government is nothing more then a legitimized monopoly on violence. Taxes are nothing more then theft. A parasite that feeds off the fear and guilt of human beings!

The "Social Contract"

The foundation of statism is probably best rooted in the social contract of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. In short society creates a creature called the government for protection, in exchange for this protection the people provide their loyalty.

However we must bring our selves back to Individualism. I did not create this leviathan, I did not make a voluntary contract with any government. Yet I am still subject to this contract.  You cannot simply claim that "society" has made a contract, because "society" does not exist, it is not capable of making contracts, only individuals are capable of making contracts.

Even if my ancestors did (and perhaps they did and perhaps they did not) their contractual relationships cannot be applied to me or anyone else. I never gave anyone the consent to own me as an individual human being.

"Then Just Move!"

Ah yes of course, if I don't like it here I can just move making my relationship with the government contractual correct? Wrong.

If I were to stand outside of your house with a gun with no previous agreements yet at the end of the day every day collect "protection money" at the point of a gun (dispute if I protect you or not!) would you call this a voluntary and legitimate contract because you could "simply move if you don't like it there?".  absolutely not.  A crime is a crime, violence is violence, and telling people to simply move to avoid it when they are doing nothing to provoke this violence is ridiculous.

Even if this contract is legitimate it is not optimal considering that your "guard" is going to collect his money at the end of the day weather or not he has actually done his job.  Because he has a monopoly over your protection.  You have to accept it, or "just move" to another monopoly over your protection.

3) Anarchist Essays: Authority?

My position of anarchy is not chaos, it is not simply no government, it is the proposition that authority does not exist. All claims to authority are false and completely unfounded by any rational and consistent standard.

I have asked it before and I ask it again. By what standard does one human being own another? In order to own a human being you must claim property rights but you run into a contradiction because if people have property rights then surely the person you claim to own also has property rights. Perhaps there is no such thing as property rights? In which case the argument for authority also fails because if there are no property rights then authority cannot claim to own anything.

At this point it is clear that authority cannot exist unless some human being(s) have special privileges over others. Or in other words unless morality is not consistent or objective.

"Society"

In order to legitimize authority we must build premises off of nonexistent entities such as "society" or "America" or "country" which I point out before are in my essay on objective morality do not exist but are simply another name for a group of individuals.

But let us assume that validity can be built off non existent entities such as "society".  Perhaps you make the claim "authority is valid because it is good for society" or  "authority is valid because we need it to protect us".  In which case I am forced to ask, does anyone that claims to protect you have authority over you? Does anyone who does something good for society have authority over you? If not then why? That is the logical conclusion of your statement.

If I and 10 other friends go to your neighborhood with guns claiming that we are here to protect you do I then have valid authority over you? If authority is simply derived from the need of protection then I would see no other option then to accept authority from anyone who claimed to protect you. Why is the governments protection legitimate but my band of 10 friends not? I see no fundamental difference other then government is more culturally acceptable. So then are you going to change your premise to "we need something socially acceptable to protect us?" that seems a little unnecessary to me, not to mention completely unfounded.

And for another example. If the government can take your money for social security for "the good of society" then why is that if a bank came and took your money at gun point and invested it for the later years of your life they would be arrested? Both are doing the same thing, perhaps even with the same motivation "for the good of society" yet the governments authority is recognized as legitimate and the banks is not.  Why is this? Once again, one is socially acceptable and the other is not, if that is your standard for morality then please feel free to call your self a cultural relativist and openly admit that morality is inconsistent and irrelevant.

Voting

I am sure at this point the burning assertion you want to make is that "authority is valid because we vote!". Let us assume that this is true and see what conclusions we come to if voting validates authority.

So any authority that is put into power because of voting is valid? Is this your premise? In which case I am forced to ask, was the authority of Hitler valid? Exactly how much authority over you does some one have when they voted into office, is it absolute? If it not why not? By what standard do people only "partly own you" if you vote for them? Or are you just making blind unfounded assertions?

If people voted and decided that rape is legal is their authority still valid? If people voted that you must kill your youngest child would you have to respect that authority because it was validated through voting?

If voting authority derived from voting is only valid as long as the authority doesn't do anything evil then surly I will agree with you! but in which case he wouldn't be able to exercise his authority at all because the same moral rules would apply to him as they did for me.  Thus making authority quite useless.

Voting is just a game we play, nothing more. Simply because more people in a mass of people, usually within a geographical area, decide on something or some one validates nothing.

What Is "Authority"?

So exactly is this thing around us that people call "authority"? Nothing more then legitimized tyranny. It is nothing more then an excuse to apply different morality to your leaders then what applies to you. This is the difference between authority and simply being a  leader.

No one owns anyone.  There is no authority only agreements and voluntary contracts among individuals.

2) Anarchist Essays: Objective Morality

I am not even going to attempt to explain ethics with in one essay but I do want to stress the importance of objective morality.  Because I believe this is the foundation for anarchist/libertarian thinking by claiming that morality is bigger then government.

Either morality is objective, consistent and derived from reality or it is irrelevant.  In the same way that if mathematics are not objective and consistent then they are irrelevant because the statement 2+2=5 has no relevance to my existence, how ever the statement 2+2=4 does.

If I told you rocks fell up and down at the same time you wouldn't believe me.  If I told you 1 and -1 are the same thing, you would laugh at me. Yet for some reason we don't believe morality should be consistent. If I take money by force then it is called stealing, and it is wrong but if a member of the IRS comes and takes your money at the threat of violence if you don't comply it is simply called "taxes".

Individualism

If we are to apply morality consistently it must be applied to individuals, and individuals alone. Because any group of people is simply 2 or more individuals. Society is not an existing entity that you can feel or touch, but rather another name for a certain number of individuals.  Yet we treat this term "society" as if it is some kind of god.

"it is good because it is good for society!" is a very common claim and also "the greatest good for the greatest number!" we have all probably heard before or perhaps you hold these beliefs yourself.

However I reject all of these claims. Because "good" cannot be applied to groups of people, but only individuals. For example to say "it is good to take from the rich to give to the poor because it is good for society" is invalid because both the rich and the poor are within society, and though the poor may be benefiting the rich clearly are not. So clearly this deal is not good for the rich, are they not within society? How can something be good for society when it is not good for everyone within society?  Exactly who is society? Exactly who is benefiting? Why do different moral rules apply to people based on their income? To separate society from individuals makes as much sense as trying to separate  a house from the bricks it is made of.

Not only do people try and apply morality to groups but they also try to claim that morality is subjective to groups. When you say "its just their culture" you are claiming that different moral rules apply to different people based on what people think. This concept is possibly best known and cultural relativism.

Once again this is the same thing. Different moral rules apply to different people based on a group of people think with in a certain geographical location?  By this standard I see it hard to say that it was wrong for the Nazis to kill the Jews.  What people think, no matter how many of them there are, does not change the truth.  And if morality is a concept derived from truth and if truth is a concept derived from reality then I believe it is clear that morality is something to come to terms with and understand, rather than something to be voted on.

Negative Rights

Also to maintain consistency there must be negative rights or what is often times called individual rights as opposed to positive rights or collective rights. The individual rights that John Locke listed were Life, Liberty, and property (in the declaration of independence it was changed to "the pursuit of happiness" to justify slavery) but what Locke meant by a right to property is not that you have a natural right to a certain amount of property but rather that no one has the right to take it away from you.  Also you do not have a right to be alive no matter what but no one has the right to take your life away.

Perhaps now we can see the difference between positive and negative rights. Negative rights mean that you do not have the right to have things taken from you, positive rights mean that you have an inherent right to have something. An example of positive rights would be FDR's "second bill of rights"

• A Job with a Living Wage
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
• Homeownership
• Medical Care
• Education
• Recreation

Surely you can see a difference between the right not have property taken away from you and "the right to homeownership". And perhaps now we can see the problem with positive rights. They apply different moral rules to different people.  A person who does have a house and a person who does not have a house according to "the second bill of rights" have a different standard of ethics applied to them.  One person has the "right" to another persons property or money to achieve their "right of homeownership" yet the persons money who must be taken away to help provide for the homeless mans home does not own his property? The statement being made is "property rights both exist and don't exist at the same time" or "property rights are valid for me but not for you simply because you have a house" which is a pure contradiction and invalid.

Unless you are going to argue that a person who cannot afford education, homeownership, and medical care (which would be much more available under a free market), is fundamentally different then the person who can then you must apply the same moral rules to both of them. Either property rights exist or they do not, they cannot exist and not exist at the same time. If they do not exist then no one has a right to homeownership at all, if they do exist then no one has the right to take money from other people.  Those are your only two options. Thus positive rights can be seen as contradictory because they both claim and deny property rights at the same time.

Government Applies

The reason that discussing objective morality is so important is that if morality is objective and consistent to all individuals then the individuals in government have the exact same moral principals applied to them that applies to everyone else. This concept will be discussed further in later essays but it is important to understand. I as an anarchist believe government is not some kind of supernatural entity that has different moral rules then the rest of us.  It is made of the same material: Individuals.

1) Anarchist Essays: Intro

I thought it might be nice to write a series of blogs explaining my belief in libertarian anarchism to give people a basic understanding of what I believe and why I believe it. I am not sure how many of these there will be however I am sure that these first few will only lead to more questions, and those questions will only lead to more essays/blogs.

I believe that a vital question must be raised: Is the government a legitimate and necessary institution? For most this is not a question at all. Which I find interesting considering that this concept is responsible for nearly every mass murder in all of history. This concept is responsible for the some of the greatest oppression of human beings.  This concept  even claims to own you.

Yet it is never questioned and always endorsed. Usually even loved, praised and considered moral.

I am here to claim that the government is not only unnecessary but evil and illegitimate.

My Influences

My journey began when I first read Ayn Rand at the start of my senior year of high school. I began to understand the importance of the individual and how it is not compatible with the state. Rand taught me many things and I hold her close to my heart how ever as I studied more it became clear that he was not entirely consistent.

As started to become involved with libertarian forums and I feel that it was then that my things started to really make sense.  Rand had set a foundation and the libertarians built off it more consistently. I was introduced to Murray Rothbard who was the first to coin the term Anarcho-Capitalism.  For the first time in my life I found my self asking the question of "is the state a necessary or unnecessary evil?" however I was not yet entirely convinced of anarchism.

As I was being active in these libertarian forums and online groups the infamous name of Ron Paul came up. At this point it was my belief that anarchy was preferable but for now I had to deal with the state, so I became fairly active in the Ron Paul movement.

However at one point or another it became clear that the Ron Paul movement was going to fail, I of course was quite discouraged, at which point I watched a youtube video by Stefan Molyneux the host of Freedomain Radio a very well done anarcho-capitalist broadcast that I enjoyed listening to from time to time. This video was called "An open letter to Ron Paul supporters" in which he explained that it is philosophy and our relationship with truth that sets us free, not politics. Not begging for freedoms that were never theirs to take, and that we will never get from them even if we try because state power only grows.

His message truly touched me, and sense I have let go of politics and given my self to philosophy and the study of Anarchy.

The Goal

What I hope to accomplish with these essays is a reference for myself and others on what my basic beliefs are so I am not required to repeat so much information all the time, and also to build a stronger foundation of my beliefs so that I can communicate them more effectively.

I know I am an amateur and I claim to be nothing else, how ever I would suggest that you take a serious read because I truly believe that I have some value to offer you in these essays.

Gay Marriage and Stuff

Perhaps something I should make clear is that I do not believe that homosexuality wrong, evil, or immoral in any way. I have heard significant evidence that it is in fact something you are born with and can be due to stress form the pregnant host.

In short I am not here to criticize anyone one for being homosexual.

But I do have some thoughts and suggestions, that have become ever more relevant as of late with Prop. 8.

I can understand the frustration of what prop. 8 means.  I can understand the loneliness you feel in the world.  I myself am an anarchist and an atheist and I believe to a certain extent I can relate to being an out cast and treated as odd and inherently offensive to the people around me.

However there is something I have a hard time understanding: Why does the government make your marriage legitimate?

If someone told me that my marriage and commitment to another human being was not recognized by the government, this would mean nothing to me.

What I don't understand is why you would beg for the government to approve of your relationships and commitments to other people. Why you would ask for their permission in the first place?

If you love some one then it is your love that makes that commitment legitimate, not the government.

By asking the government to approve of your marriage you are putting your love up to debate.

I do not ask governments permission to be happy, I do no ask god to provide me with a meaning to my life, I do not ask anything of anyone because my interests and values are defined by myself alone.

YOU make your relationships and commitments sincere. Gods, governments, and cultures have nothing to do with it.

The Pseudo-Science of Government

One of the most irritating things about government is how it makes the use of violence the answer to every single social problem. There is never an examination of facts or economic law, no instead the supernatural entity called government is always the answer that some how effects all things with out actually being apart of it.

"Oh! Oh! Oh! I have an idea! lets point guns at people and make them do what we want!"

This is the only solution every intellectual has to offer anymore. All intellectual energy is focused on where to point the gun, and never on the nature of the gun its self.

Government only has pseudo-scientific solutions.

The bailout comes to mind.  As if some committee of people that have no direct relation to your well being have the ability to spend 700 billion dollars productively (that they printed out of thin air) in an economy of millions of people each with differing goals, and interests.

This is not an answer.  Its a joke.

Most people seemed to realize that there was something wrong with simply taking 700 billion dollars and giving it a few corporations, though most don't even seem to know why.

The reason why is because it is not based any economic understanding.  These it doesn't take a professional to say "hey! lets print a whole bunch of money!". It takes a monopoly on violence that has a very limited interest in your well being.

There are reasons why the war on drugs has achieved nothing but millions of lost dollars and thousands of deaths. There are reasons why welfare has increased poverty. There are reasons why prostitution is a profession filled with STD's, rape, and drug addiction, except for certain parts of Nevada where it is legal.

But no one ever pays attention. No one cares to even look.

Capitalism always takes the blame and the we point more guns.

Now the newest bright idea "Lets point guns at people so that medicine can be affordable."

There is this insane assumption that for some reason, the economic law of medicine is entirely different then every other aspect of economics.  For some reason food is very affordable, but medical care is not.   Why is that? They should be functioning on the same principles of economics. The prices should be a representation of human beings and interests. So why aren't they?

It's because of the guns that are already there.

You cannot look at the government enforced monopoly called the AMA that determines by the force of violence who can be a doctor, and how many doctors there can be in a certain geographical location to maximize profits and then call it capitalism, and say that it has failed!

Of course it will make no difference, capitalism will take the blame and the government will grow as it always does.

Capitalism is a representation of peoples interests.  It is when some people use the force of violence to gain advantages of other (like the AMA) then it is not! Then it is a representation of some people being able to charge more because they have outlawed competition. That is what people need to understand. That is what people need to see. Rather then making blind assertions that capitalism has failed and the only solution we have left is violence.

Government is a pseudo-science, and using violence to solve social problems is not "a noble cause".

Chick Flicks Are Shallow

One of my biggest pet peeves is girls who think they have some kind of monopoly on love and sincerity and then go on to explain how love is some kind of irrational force.  They define love as something irrational and then get upset that it doesn't exist.

What chick flicks always stress how much someone panders to the desires and insecurites of another person. They treat love as if it is some kind of right. That you do not need to be a good person to be loved, because some one will just come to the rescue and give you flowers, and tell you they love you, and say the most sweet romantic catch phrases that just make your heart pump!

Does this not come across as shallow to anyone else? Just waiting for someone to pander to all of your insecurties is not love, its simply being lonely, and insecure.

Expecting someone to meet some ridicules standard of bringing flowers and appeasing very wish and desire that you have is simply wishing to get something for nothing.

No one has an obligation to love you. If they did it would not be love.  You cannot tell some one to love you any more then you can tell someone to appreciate a work of art.

Love is an involuntary response to virtue.

We fall in love with the best in people.  We fall in love with their virtuousness. We fall in love with the beauty of their individuality.

Love is not waiting for someone to come and fix us and all of our problems but us fixing ourselves! We make ourselves beautiful! We make our selves better.

It is only then that love is possible, otherwise all we will ever find is co-dependency.

But if we improve ourselves and who we are, then I promise you we can find a real love that is far better then any chick flick or romantic comedy has to offer.

After all... if we hate who we are, is it really fair to expect someone else to love us?