There are many libertarians and freedom minded people that always get confused. I can’t blame them, the propaganda is overwhelming. But with some critical thought that can be overcome.
What is more hard to decypher is what goal or movement should you support in the first place. Obviously you can’t zig-zag between positions, because that will accomplish nothing. So you have to be consistent in your political goals and you must also understand the fundamental ethics of your position.
You basically have 2 choices:
It is more preferable to take the longterm position, which might not fulfill itself in your lifetime, but it will help your children and humanity at large so that your offsprings can be proud of their ancestors.
I am not proud of my ancestors because all they did was to support more and more tyrannical positions, so all their lives was in vain, they have accomplished nothing, with a few exceptions.
But if we want our offsprings to be proud of us, we should better support policies that will leave the Earth and society at a better standing than we have inherited it.
So we can’t be selfish in politics, it always have to be the longest and most sustainable solution. Short term benefits for long term suffering is not good.
Okay so keeping in mind what I said above, you should only support policies that:
You should only support these policies. Your clear goal should be to decrease violence and the threat of violence. Coercion must decrease, and be eliminated from society.
Policies that are opposite to this only bring tyranny, suffering, and possibly extinction of the human race (Nukes).
The only policies that are sustainable and bring peace and harmony to Earth are those that strive for decreasing coercion.
Now keep in mind, not always it is an absence of a law, sometime it is the introduction of a law, but only for short term period to stabilize a situation, and after that abolished.
Also you can’t immediately abolish certain laws, even if they are very coercive, because the abolishment of them would bring even more chaos and violence in the end.
So we have to be very smart about what kind of policies are good for freedom and what aren’t, and we must be very open minded and analyze each one thoroughly.
For instance as much as taxes are evil and coercive, abolishing taxes right now would literally bring back street violence, gangs and extreme poverty, which would be much more coercive than what we have now.
But that doesn’t mean that taxes should exist, it only means that they should be lowered gradually, and abolished only after society had time to adjust itself to the new paradigm.
So let’s take examples, and we will start with the hardest issues, and see which one is which.
In this example we have the coercion of the border control & customs taxes versus letting in people from incompatible cultures, possibly terrorists and gangster criminals into a country.
I think the position on this should be obvious. While border control is pretty coercive, certainly being stuck in North Korea like in a country-wide prison is not fun. Borders could keep people in just as they could keep people out.
However here we have millions of Arabic extremists flooding into Europe with a known history of violence, possibly gangsters or jihadists, with a very totalitarian mindset flooding into Europe.
So which one will cause more coercion? Border guards? Or millions of violent extremists?
I think the answer is obvious. So having borders at this point is preferable. Preferable until people all around the world don’t calm down and become peaceful. Until there are violent people on the planet, you have to have borders as well.
Just as you have to have a door in your house. Until the last burglar exists, people should have doors on their houses.
And this doesn’t mean you can’t let people into the country. It doesn’t have to be a prison on lockdown.
It just means that certain people have to be filtered out, just like you don’t invite violent people in your house.
Now let’s look at this issue too from a different perspective. Europe has been disarmed already and it’s defenseless against these invading hordes of immigrants that are very violent in most cases. So we will take the US for example.
What would it take to disarm everybody in the US? Well it would literally take house-to-house raids of everyone’s house being inspected from top to bottom to make sure they haven’t stashed away guns somewhere.
Of course Americans will probably not put up with that level of tyranny, so that will probably spark a civil war.
So to disarm everyone in the US, it would take massive amounts of violence to accomplish it, and regardless which side wins, the damage would be massive.
So anyone who supports gun control literally supports massive amount of violence to be carried out against everyone.
Thus the gun violence that exists now in the US pales in comparison to how much violence a total disarmament would result in.
So it’s not just that people have a natural right for self defense, but also a disarmament only results in massive violence.
So if you oppose violence, you should support gun rights.
So these are just the 2 “hottest” examples that circulate now in politics. But you can apply this principle to any issue to see whether you are morally consistent.
Our goal should be to decrease violence and the threat of violence on Earth, and for that we should only support policies that do that, and not the opposite.
The end goal is Peace on Earth, Liberty and Prosperity. If you don’t support that, then you are a totalitarian control freak bent for world domination.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
