Choosing who we associate with has far greater implications than most of us realize. We are communal by nature and depend on interaction with others. Rewarding someone’s behavior by associating or doing business with them is the most significant endorsement. A society that rewards people for violence will get more violence. A society that tolerates people who violate the non-aggression principle will be ruled by aggressive people. A society that believes aggression is necessary in order to function will institutionalize coercion and reward those who provide what it considers necessary. More importantly, the choices we make as individuals determine how we will be treated. When all of those choices are added up, the preference of a society is clear, and it will be reflected by the culture.
Because of government propaganda, many believe that threats of force are the best way to change others’ behavior: “Do what the politicians say because we the people told them to say that, and if you don’t, you deserve to get locked in a cage.” Any honest observer of society will see, however, the consequences of individual association have a far greater effect on regulating behavior. The simple obvious example is production: people make things that others want to consume. A large part of economic behavior is determined by what other people value as determined by sales.
In personal relationships, we generally choose to associate with people who make our lives better. Unfortunately, many don’t realize that this should be the only determining factor in deciding whether or not to interact with someone. When we stay in abusive relationships, we are rewarding, and thus encouraging, abusive behavior. The same principles apply to the attitude of a community. You might want to buy something because it’s a good deal and the product itself makes your life better, but if the seller uses your money to pollute the environment or support politicians, that needs to be factored in! A community that gives in to an abusive relationship with government will get more abuse.
When people decide not to support a company at the same time because of its behavior, it’s called a boycott. Sales determine corporate behavior far more than regulation. Even with the worst of corporatism, the profit motive requires efficiently serving the needs of as many people as possible. If a company fails to meet people’s needs, it goes out of business. Government regulations only serve to drive out competition, limit our choices as consumers, and stifle innovation. When our choices are limited because competing new businesses are stifled, corporations get away with bad behavior, especially when people depend on them for essential services. All of our choices as consumers have an impact.
Reputation, referrals, social status, and existing customer satisfaction can be factors in deciding whether or not to associate with someone, but when buying expensive items or medical services, we often seek formal approval or endorsement by experts. While governments will never fully monopolize this most important function, many try to with the licensing racket. Licensing sounds good because we all want reliable services and qualified people, but that’s why it’s unnecessary. There’s nothing wrong with a group saying that if you don’t meet their standards, they won’t certify you – but when the governments do that, not only is it funded by taxation, it comes with the threat of force. This means governments decide who is allowed to do business based on the desires of their sponsors. This also serves as another form of taxation, because getting licensed is often expensive. When judging whether or not to do business with someone, rarely is government approval sufficient. In fact, government licensing is often so unreliable, that even if the standards were appropriate, it couldn’t be trusted.
We don’t have the right to vote for a politician who is going to hire an enforcement officer who is going to threaten people or punish them with fines (theft) for doing things we don’t like. The only right we have in regards to someone doing something we don’t like (if they are not violating someone’s rights) is to walk away. Even in most cases when someone is violating the rights of others, walking away, fully disassociating, and encouraging others to do the same is far more effective than violence. When all the people in a community disassociate from someone, the result is ostracism. This may be geographical or not, but one does not need to be expelled from an area to be effectively cut off and isolated.
In cases of extremely violent and dangerous individuals, ostracism may be insufficient, but addressing that issue by pooling resources peacefully will be far more effective than by using this as an excuse to punish an entire society with taxes. We have an innate instinct for punishment, but justice is not served by another injustice. Choosing who to interact with carefully will achieve the stated goals of government regulation peacefully, efficiently, and morally. In our daily lives, we all have an important role to play in achieving a more free and just world. Every choice we make is an expression of our values. This powerful process of everyone expressing their preferences to determine social standards is only stifled by government.
Chapter 6 Section V From 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. 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.
