The following essay is a new chapter in The Philosophy of Life:
I
Government is a coercive agency: the industry that specializes in the use of destructive force – or the threat of destructive force – as a way to get people to do things.
What is the ideal government? The ideal government is no government at all. Ideally, people get along with each other, and the use of force is not deemed necessary.
However, there is always a fool who does things that are neither in his nor in anyone else’s best interest. This leaves open the possible usefulness of force in general, and government in particular.
First of all, let us consider economic facts. In a wise community, all people wish to be productive, which means that all people in the community would wish to take from the earth and build things that help to advance the human lifespan and human happiness. Because we want the maximum lifespan, and the maximum happiness, there would be on one who would wish to abstain from contributing to the attainment of these goals through productive work.
It is also important to note that when someone is productive, and when someone does do work that leads to an increase in life and happiness, it is done selfishly, because everyone ultimately seeks to care only for himself, because that is how we are built. We are capable of caring for other people, but only if we believe that, in caring for others, we will somehow be cared for in return, if not by man, then by God.
These attributes of selfishness and trade – whereby people primarily care about their own welfare, and whereby people are indeed willing to help others, as long as they believe they will be helped in return – are laws of human nature, and they cannot be abrogated or willed away.
The fact that we have basic needs as individuals, and that these needs require certain material or mental objects to be satisfied, requires that we resist efforts by others to deprive us of our values, and, conversely, requires that we welcome others who help to increase our lots. Though we are selfish in this sense, we are altruistic in the sense that everything we do is for God’s sake. Thus, it is just as valid to say that we are altruistic as it is to say that we are selfish, as long as we know in which contexts we speak. In relation to other human beings, we are selfish. In relation to God, we are altruistic.
Having established that wise people wish to contribute to the effort to be productive, and having established that selfishness and trade are necessary attributes of human nature, we can proceed to paint of picture of what life would be like in a wise world, or a semi-wise world, including in relation to the use for force and government.
No one wants to be destructive – and everyone wants to be productive – in a wise world. Thus, in a perfectly wise world, there would be no use of force. Even if an individual believes that he should have more wealth and property than he does, he would not want to steal from others, or harm others, in order to obtain that increase in wealth or property, because the other party would not allow that to happen without a fight. Trade is welcome, but force is met with resistance.
If someone is in dire need of economic help, and if they are good people who solicit help from others in a respectful and peaceful manner, then they may be helped. But if someone tries to steal from others, then that may start a fight.
Is it not possible that if enough poor, working class, disgruntled people get together, they can collectively steal from the rich and get away with it? Sure – it is possible. Any act of violence is possible. It’s just that wise people – who openly value their lives to the point that they admit a desire to live forever – are not inclined to fight, or to start wars. Thus, there is the lowest likelihood that even this kind of organized force would be used by wise people for fear of reprisals.
It is true that, because people are selfish, they are willing to steal from others to get what they need. If a strong enough gang of thugs is assembled from either the poor class, the rich class, or the military class, they may want to consider stealing from the other class. But, between the rich and the poor, why should one class succeed in stealing from and controlling the other? Though the poor may have a higher incentive to steal from the rich (considering that they are in greater need of wealth), they would have a lower ability to steal from the rich (considering their lower ability to afford military help). Likewise, though the rich may have a higher ability to steal from the poor (considering that they could afford more military help), they would have a lower willingness to do so. Thus, we find an inverse relationship between an individual or a group’s willingness to steal from others, and an individual or a group’s ability to steal from others. This inverse relationship can be expressed as WA = 1 (willingness = W and ability = A). I call this equation the Crux of Capitalism, because it is the basis for the realization that it is natural and moral for people to deal with each other by means of trade, and not by means of force. The economic and political result of a society that includes trade and excludes force is called “capitalism.” Those who violate the Crux only invite unnecessary warfare and lost productivity, which is bad for everyone.
However, this is not to rule out the possibility that the government overpower its citizens. Thus, citizens would not have a government that could wind up turning on its citizens. What kind of government system could provide people with the protection they deserve? A government that allows its citizens a measure of military power, and the right to use this military power against government officials who violate terms and conditions of a contract called a “Constitution,” that would set forth principles of government consistent with the Crux of Capitalism.
II
What would be the terms and conditions of this Constitution?
First of all, the government should not be allowed to forcibly extract wealth from the citizenry. Nor would the government be allowed to commit any other act of immorality or impropriety, such as lying or cheating. Thus, the only manner in which government is funded would be by donation, and not by taxation. Furthermore, the government should not fine people as a means of punishment, because this could be an indirect way of stealing from the citizenry. This is a negative law, or something that the government should not do.
Second of all, a positive law that the government should follow is that it should only perform one task: to prosecute immoral behavior, as defined by the Philosophy of Life, to the extent that people are willing to pay for certain immoral behavior to be prosecuted. In fact, there is no question as to the laws of such a government. The law under such a government is to be moral, in accordance with the Philosophy of Life. The only question, and the only variable, lies in which punishments – if any – are assigned for which violations of morality.
The negative law and the positive law of government are the only laws attributed to the Constitution. Also note how they are interdependent. It is because the government should enforce morality that it is prohibited from stealing from its own citizens, for that would be immoral in accordance with the Crux of Capitalism. Likewise, due to the unwillingness of the government to steal from its citizens, if the government were paid to act, such action would naturally entail attempts to prevent occurrences of theft, or any other acts of immorality.
Having established the immorality of force, it is naturally outlawed. But there are other violations of morality that people may want to pursue, such as various psychological, familial, or economic conditions. For example, a psychological condition that a moral government may wish to enforce is that of wisdom. The government would enforce this psychological condition by way of mandatory testing, failure of which would result in ejection from the nation.
As for the familial realm, some relationships would be outlawed, rules would be established for parental standards, what can be sold to children, etc. Suicide, self-mutilation, and other such vices would also be illegal.
As for the economic realm, extreme cases of irrational use of property could be prosecuted. Such parties who use property in ways that are so irrational that they are singled out and prosecuted are called “monopolies,” and that is the best way to define this word. Also, some goods and service would not be allowed to be sold, because they are inherently immoral.
However, it is the prohibition of force that would be central mission of a wise government. People would invest more in the prosecution of murder, maim, and larceny than in any other enterprise. But the general rule of a wise government is not to enforce capitalism; it is to enforce morality, in a moral way. And it is that which the Constitution of wisdom would mandate.
What punishments would be assigned for what crimes? That depends on what the paying populace demands. How would the government go about apprehending and prosecuting criminals? That depends on what the paying populace demand. There are no fixed precepts for procedural law and substantive law. Government is a science and a technology that would improve over time, with the development of new findings and methods. But there would certainly be sufficient freedom to bear arms, and sufficient public disclosure of government information, in order to avoid the possibility of a violation of the Constitutional contract between a government and its citizens, as cited above.
Because the militia would be a business, just like any other, except that it is funded by donation and not by fee, it would have a right to abstain from the protection of certain properties. Furthermore, there could be multiple militias competing for customers. Militias that are wise would not start wars between other militias, and they would peacefully accept defeat in the open market. Furthermore, good behavior is crucial for the public reputation of any militia.
A militia would not be able to own any property that is not paid for. This prohibition is crucial, for it means the difference between a dictatorial government and a libertarian government the likes of which correspond to the Constitution. In fact, all land should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. This goes not only for the way that the government should acquire land; this goes for the way that anyone should acquire land. However, contracts should not be abrogated. Thus, if someone leases a parcel of land for 100 years, then they have a right to it, even if someone comes along with a better offer, unless the party who owns the land chooses to sell it.
III
What if someone is elbowed out of the economy because of the rise in cheap labor, mechanization, or cutthroat competition? Should they just lay down and die, or hope that people are kind enough to give them charity?
This is a false alternative. It is possible for people to survive in such cases without having to resort to simple handouts, and that is by belonging to a group of people that are similarly destitute, or in threat of becoming destitute, and by creating a new community that is distinct from the community in which they have failed to succeed. In this new community, the standard of living would be lower, because the people who moved there did so because they failed to be productive in the other community. But, for this kind of community to provide employment for as many people as possible among those who seek it, it would have to have a self-sufficient and isolated economy. The more self-sufficient and isolated the economy, the higher the employment rate in that community. Furthermore, those who fail in these communities are encouraged to seek work in yet another self-sufficient and isolated community. And this can go on ad infinitum.
However, the existence of such communities is not contrary to capitalism. To the contrary, these self-sufficient communities, which can be referred to as “communes,” would be perfectly legal in a capitalistic society. However, such communes would have to rely on donors to purchase the land on which those communes reside, if there is a risk that the land would be bought by someone else. Thus, ultimately, people who are unemployed in a free society are dependent on charity for their survival, even if the charity comes in the form of donors who purchase land on which communes can reside. Nonetheless, the upper class of people should welcome the existence of such communes, because people can graduate from the commune, and contribute to the upper class of society. Also, it is possible for people to lose in the upper class, declare bankruptcy, and be demoted to the lower class.
In the case of socialism, there is violent action by the poor to seize the means of production from the rich. However, the use of violence is unacceptable and reprehensible. It is against what is natural, and it is against what is moral. It is against the Crux of Capitalism. So why do people believe in a false alternative between capitalism and communism when both are perfectly compatible? Why is it assumed that the rich need be forcibly taxed and regulated in order for people to have a safety net if they fail in the upper class of competitive society?
The answer is that people simply have not acquired the kind of intellectual clarity that merits discovery of the Philosophy of Life, let alone this facet of the Philosophy of Life. Thus, people have been ensnared in their own conceptual conflations and equivocations that do not allow for the coexistence of capitalism and communism–or, as it were, communism on capitalism’s terms.
Laissez faire does not preclude the existence of communes in which people can live if they fail to succeed in the uppermost marketplace. But this does not change the fact that such a society would indeed be laissez faire. Indeed, different communes can compete with each other, and people who are elbowed out of the marketplace can and should have freedom to choose their own commune out of several, if they need one to survive.
