The false god of the NAP.

I truly wish the Non-Aggression Principle had never been brought forth. For those unaware of this concept, it is the simple thought that no human being has the inherent right to initiate the use of force against another human being. Sounds like a noble truth we can all agree on. Why would I be opposed to such a thing? Well, I'm not opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the factioning of the anarchist philosophy that has resulted from the birth of the NAP.

A growing number of people in the anarchist community have taken the NAP as the fundamental tenet of anarchy. It is not. While these folks, heretofore referred to as “NAP-centrists”, cling to the NAP like rabid ferrets they seem to be ignoring the thought that has been the fundamental tenet since day one; no human being has the inherent right to control the life of another human being.

To many this may seem like splitting hairs. The NAP-centrists will certainly tell you that physical force is the only way to control people. But the difference between not controlling people and merely not using physical force against people is a huge philosophical leap.

Let's start with the basic assertion of the NAP-centrists that physical force is the only way to control people. They claim this makes the NAP synonymous with a ban on control since it is a ban on the only method that can be considered control. They discard proven techniques of behavioral control such as propaganda or shame by saying that such tactics do not constitute the use of force. They claim these methods always allow the victim the choice to opt out. The entire NAP-centric philosophy rests on two premises; First, that physical force removes the victim's ability to disobey. Second, that psychological coercion always allows the victim to disobey. Both premises are entirely wrong.

First of all, physical force does not remove your options. If an aggressor holds a gun to your head and demands you write a check to him the laws of physics do not require your hand to start writing. You can simply refuse to comply. You have that choice. Unless somebody plants a remote control in your brain so they can take over your body when they feel the need, you always have the option to refuse a demand. And history is full of accounts of people who have suffered unimaginable torture and death rather than comply with demands made of them. One need only look at the long list of people burned at the stake for refusing to renounce their heresy in order to realize that physical force does not eliminate the ability to choose.

But let's look at the second premise. NAP-centrists universally believe psychological coercion always leaves you free to choose a different option than demanded. Once again, history serves to debunk this notion.

Just look at everybody's favorite historical figure, Adolf Hitler. Do you think he whipped eighty-million Germans into a genocidal frenzy by waving guns at them? Look at the posters from Nazi Germany. You won't find a single one that says “Obey or Die”. Hitler rose from nobody to most reviled man in history in just twelve years. He won the adoration and support of over eighty-million people. He conquered almost all of Europe. And he did it all with psychological coercion. It's called propaganda. And it works better than any firearm ever invented.

Any anarchist who has ever debated with a statist should be all too aware of how effective this brainwashing can be. Not only do statists refuse to make the choice to oppose government, they aren't even aware the choice exists. How many times have you heard, “We'd be lost without government to provide....”? Fill in your own blank to finish that sentence. These people are convinced government is essential to human life. So they remain obedient. They don't question, they don't rebel. Because they have been programmed to believe this is the way things have to be. They are controlled, not by the gun, but by the pen.

So we can see that physical force does not prevent disobedience any more effectively than psychological coercion. This eliminates both premises of the NAP-centric philosophy. Remember, that philosophy is based on the idea that physical force is the only way to coerce people since psychological force always leaves the option to disobey. Since physical force also leaves the option for disobedience it cannot, under the same logic, be considered more coercive than psychological force. At the same time, psychological force quite often eliminates the option of disobedience by simply convincing people there is no such option. Contrary to what the NAP-centrists claim there is strong historical evidence to suggest that psychological coercion is far more effective than physical.

But what's the point of all this? Primarily to inject some logical consistency back into the movement. I've been noticing the factioning for some time. I chalked it up to being some sort of fad making the rounds of the forums. But then I discovered that at least one of the luminaries in the field of anarchist thinking was a staunch proponent of this school of thought. That worries me. Anybody who has the ability to publish books should really put more than a little thought into what he prints. It's to the point now where NAP-centrists literally believe you can do anything you want to people so long as you don't use physical force. To be as blunt as I can, that is not anarchy.

The NAP is merely a corollary of the anarchist philosophy, not the totality of it. If you set out to control the behavior of another human being by any means you are not an anarchist. Anarchists, above all others, are supposed to believe the Golden Rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or “live and let live”. Those two rules are much closer to the anarchic ideal than the NAP. Yet more and more anarchists are moving away from that ideal into a world where it's perfectly acceptable to libel, slander, even blackmail people. The logical contortions they use to justify this are impressive.

Which brings me to the crux of this piece. All the reasoning above to refute the NAP-centric philosophy was just to lay the groundwork for the logical brutality I am about to visit upon those who believe it is acceptable under anarchic “law” to destroy a person's reputation, take their livelihood, or just plain rob them as long as you don't use physical force. Simply showing that psychological coercion is as effective and powerful as physical coercion should have been sufficient to eliminate these practices from the anarchist's toybox. But just to make sure, I am going to destroy them with their own weapons.

I'll begin with libel and slander, two forms of defamation. The NAP-centrist view on this issue is that these are attacks on a person's reputation. They continue by asserting that a person's reputation is nothing more than the thoughts others have about that person. They then claim that since you cannot own a person's thoughts, you cannot claim ownership of your reputation. Since your reputation is not your property, attacking it is not a violation of your property rights.

I have to admit, this gave me fits for the longest time. Yes, your reputation is just the thoughts others have about you. And, no, you can't claim ownership of someone else's thoughts. But, defamation has a direct impact on a person's life. It is an attempt to control them, or at least to punish them. As such, it has no place in a world where controlling people or punishing them for non-criminal activity is strictly prohibited. I tried all manner of chains of logic searching for the way to remove any semblance of legitimacy from the idea of defamation. As usual, it was the simplest answer that did the trick.

Forget all the debate over whether or not a reputation is property that can be protected. Forget the debate about whether or not it's acceptable to deprive somebody of something they have yet to receive. The NAP-centric premise that supports the legitimacy of defamation is also the logic that destroys it. My reputation is just the thoughts of others, so I cannot own it. The NAP-centrists are forgetting that they also do not own the thoughts of others. As such, they have no right to tamper with those thoughts by defaming me. If a person changes their opinion about me as a result of your libelous action you have essentially vandalized their thoughts, their property. By their own admission, NAP-centrists do not have the right to do this. So even if their entire philosophy is correct they are still prohibited from defaming people.

Defamation was the easy part. At least in hindsight it was easy. But people will still argue in support of blackmail because they call it a voluntary exchange. I want anybody who believes that to watch the Youtube video of Harry Reid explaining how the US tax system is voluntary. It's precisely the same logic used to claim blackmail is voluntary. And, no, it doesn't make any more sense when he says it than when some NAP-centrist says it.

The claim is that the blackmailer is selling the “service” of his silence to the victim. Yes, I'm serious. That's what they say. And the guy who started all this is a college professor. Even on the face of it this claim is utter nonsense. A voluntary exchange is one which both parties are seeking. A grocery store puts out its wares signaling that they are seeking to sell. I walk into the store signaling that I am looking to buy. That is voluntary. If the store and I come to an agreement about what I want to buy and what I am willing to pay for it, then an exchange is made. If the store and I do not come to an agreement, then no exchange is made and we part ways no worse off than we were before.

Pay particular attention to the last sentence of the previous paragraph. In a voluntary exchange there are no consequences for not making the trade. When you give one party the right to set consequences for the other party for refusing to trade then the trade is no longer voluntary. That point is not even remotely debatable. You haven't given the victim a choice to trade or not trade. You have given them a choice of how much the exchange will cost them. Either they pay the price for your silence or they pay whatever it will cost in damages for the information you release.

Put the method of blackmail in a different context to see if it sounds voluntary. A man knocks on your door and offers to sell you a pair of socks for $20. You weren't in the market for socks. You didn't invite this man over to display his wares. Not to mention that $20 is pretty high for a pair of socks. Just as you are about to refuse the offer the man tells you if you don't buy his socks at his price he will have your employer dock your pay for the next three months. Does this still sound like a voluntary, reasonable exchange? It is precisely the same formula as blackmail. No, blackmail is not acceptable under anarchy. And, no, I do not care who claims it is, how many acronyms follow his name, or how many books he has written. The logic is clear. Blackmail is psychological coercion. Psychological coercion is a method of controlling a person's behavior. Controlling a person's behavior is prohibited under the anarchic philosophy. It really is that simple.

NAP-centrists also contend that blackmail is acceptable because you are only depriving a person of something they do not have yet, future income. They claim, and I vehemently oppose the idea, that people do not have the right to future income, only money they have right now. There are wicked ramifications to that line of thought. In anarchy, there are no positive rights. So using the lack of one as justification for taking something creates a serious problem. For example, there is no right to life. So using the NAP-centrist logic that you can take whatever people do not have a right to demand, murder is just fine.

But there is the right to be free from control. And all of the psychologically coercive games NAP-centrists support violate that right.

I truly hope my meager command of the English language has been sufficient to convey the logic in my head. Anarchy is not merely freedom from violence. It is freedom from control. Anything you do to control another person is un-anarchic. Anything. There is no way to justify such behavior within the confines of the philosophy of anarchy. The philosophy of anarchy explicitly prohibits one human from governing, ie controlling, another human being. And that is why I am angry with the NAP. It has caused people to lose sight of the fundamental philosophy. Do not fall into the NAP-centric trap. Because I promise if you show up at my door looking to blackmail me with some photos of me and a donkey, I will reward your tyranny with lead.

Anarchist in name only

Periodically, I like to look in on some anarchist/agorist group just to see if the movement is pulling it's head out of it's collective ass yet. Sadly, it isn't.

As everybody who is familiar with the philosophy should know, anarchy is about the removal of the coercive state. It's about pure voluntaryism. No person or group has the right to control the behavior of another person or group so long as the second group is not aggressing against anybody. It is the most simple of concepts. And it doesn't leave any room for interpretation. But apparently it does.

Today I nearly had an aneurysm again when I read a site proclaiming to explain the concept of agorism. There were two bits of utter rubbish which caused me to reach for my glycerine pills. The first was the phrase "soft propertarian". They went on to explain this meant agorism supports private property rights within certain parameters. They defined these parameters as "occupation and use". In other words, you can only own property if you live there and do something on it. No, no, no. You fucking brain-dead morons. I'm tired of being polite with fucktard socialists who insist on twisting anarchy to suit their own bias. Ownership means exclusive control. If you own a car, nobody can tell you what color to paint it or how often to drive it. It is yours to do with as you please. It's the same with land. Either you own it or you don't. If you own it, then nobody can tell you what you have to do with it. You can build a cathedral or you can leave it untouched so you can enjoy nature. If somebody else can tell you that you must do something with the land, then you don't own it. That means there's no such thing as private property. And if an individual can't own land, neither can a group. Because groups cannot have rights that individuals don't possess. If these nuts are going to say collectives have rights individuals don't, then they are arguing in support of the state and can't call themselves anarchists. The whole theory of statism hinges on the notion that *society* has rights all it's own that must be defended. Anarchy opposes this ridiculous notion. There is no logically consistent way to justify the oxymoronic idea of "soft" property rights. It's the same thing as "soft" freedom of speech. It's meaningless.

Not content to stop with espousing the socialist ideal of no private property, this group took the next predictable step. They attacked "capitalism". Now, in all fairness, the word "capitalism" is a bit of a chameleon. Socialists love to point to the current corporatist economy and label it "capitalism" to show it's a failure. But the current economy is not purely capitalist. Nor is capitalism synonymous with "free market" as many anarcho-capitalists like to claim. You can have a purely free market without capitalism. Capitalism is basically a credit economy. When you borrow money, you are engaging in capitalism. It is the capitalist who loans you money and charges you interest. This site also included landlords. This is rational since they hold capital, in the form of property, and charge you a fee for using it.

So here we have a group purporting to desire a free market economy where all financial transactions are voluntary and no third party has the right to interfere. But they are already putting restrictions on the transactions that are allowed in their "free" market. If you need $75 to pay for a dentist visit, I can't loan you the money. Such a transaction would be capitalism, and that is verboten in their "free" market. Think of all the other things they have outlawed in the name of the Greater Good: Car insurance, health insurance, motels, vacation homes, life insurance, mortgages, apartments, and all sorts of loans and credit cards.

Try to imagine this "perfect" world of theirs. When you wreck your car, you can't call the insurance company to get it fixed. You better have the money in the bank. Because insurance companies are capitalist institutions. They don't actually produce anything, they just grow money. But you can't have money in the bank because there wouldn't be any banks. Banks make their money off the fees they charge and the interest the charge on loans. They couldn't make loans in an anti-capitalist market. So they would have to charge fees to pay their overhead. And they can't pay interest on your savings because interest is capitalism. So you put $100 in the bank and every month pay $8 in fees to keep it there. Who would be stupid enough to do that? So no checking accounts, no debit cards. Everybody deals strictly in cash and has to keep their cash at home.

Picture the new highschool graduate ready to leave home. Where do they go? They don't have money yet to buy a house. They can't get a loan to buy a house. And there is no such thing as rental property or apartments because those are capitalist ideas. The kid has no choice but to live with their parents until they've saved enough to pay cash for a place of their own.

You can't take a vacation unless you have relatives in the area you plan to visit. There are no hotels or rental properties since those require landlords. And landlords are capitalists.

The issue is very simple. Some people cannot handle credit. But that has nothing to do with credit. Some people can't handle alcohol. Because of that, a bunch of self-righteous fucks banded together and banned alcohol. Did that solve anything? No, it made things worse. Capitalism is the same story. Some people can't handle it. Rather than acknowledge the incompetence of their fellow man, a bunch of self-righteous fucks think they can fix the problem by instituting a ban on the "offending" substance. And just as with every other prohibitionist group in history, these morons are too short-sighted and narrow-minded to realize the inherent flaws in their "perfect' plan.

Anarchy means freedom. It doesn't mean everybody gets to drive a Ferrari. It doesn't mean everybody gets 1.3 acres of land and a hoe to till the soil. It means everybody is free to choose their own path. Everybody is free to succeed. And everybody is free to fail. You can't eliminate failure by eliminating the tools necessary to succeed.

The road to nowhere

Among anarchists there is a lot of debate over certain topics. This debate is fueled by the search for viable answers to objections raised by statist sheep. One of the most hotly contended subjects is the construction and maintenance of roads. Statists always claim govt is essential to maintain communal property like roads. Anarchists inevitably point to toll roads as the solution. Unfortunately, most of these solutions are insanely convoluted and completely ignore the fact that roads are not an economic problem, they are a fluid dynamics problem.

It occurred to me during a discussion with one of the few true anarchists I know that the typical anarchist solution completely misses the point. There is a solution that not only solves all the issues with the roads, but also solves many environmental issues as well.

Intra-city roads are a non-issue because they can easily be maintained by a voluntary-membership maintenance collective not unlike a chamber of commerce or similar business group. The problem is how to transport masses of goods between distant cities. One solution is maglev trains. These are in use already, it's a viable technology to replace much of the road traffic. But it's limited. You can't have rail service to every tiny village. And it is still a hugely expensive idea that would be hard to fund without stealing money from, aka "taxing", people.

But there is a technology that can reach everywhere with unlimited flexibility. It's a technology that would allow anything that is currently moved by truck to be moved without any need for roads or rails at all; Airships

Yes, my friends. I'm saying that if we wish to live on a free planet we have to first undo the bonds that shackle us to the earth. The first benefit of such vehicles is that they can carry literally anything anywhere. They are actually more flexible and efficient than trucks. Airships can fly above the weather rather than being delayed by it. Airships wouldn't be slowed by construction, landslides, icy roads, traffic, or any of the other things that routinely hold up trucks. Their higher speed and ability to fly in a straight line mean airships can deliver people and products much quicker than trucks. While the ability to land in a fairly small area, the quiet operation, and the relative fuel economy make airships more practical than standard cargo planes. Airships would make a huge difference in the global economy.

The ecological benefits are even more impressive. Since such an airship could easily be powered by solar panels, no fuel would be needed. Imagine carrying ten truckloads of apples from California farms to markets in New York without burning a single drop of oil. Imagine doing so without the need for thousands of miles of roads slicing through the wilderness and impeding natural migratory patterns.

But freedom is the ultimate benefit of airships and air travel in general. You leave from wherever you happen to be and land wherever you wish to go. You are completely unrestrained by the rest of society. I believe this is why personal air travel is so heavily restricted by govts. They know they couldn't maintain control if everybody owned a helicopter. You can't have mid-air border guards or sobriety checkpoints. Imagine having the ability to fly to Hawaii for the weekend without paying for air fare. Simply climb into your own personal solar-powered airship and take off. No traffic cops. No potholes. No traffic. No airport security.

Of course, there have been many discussions about personal air travel since the Wright brothers freed us from terra firma. And there is one objection that always comes up. Doomsayers always claim that people would be dropping from the skies like rain. They say the skies would be crowded, dangerous places. This fear is exactly what govts want. And it's completely unfounded. The reason roads are congested is because they are bottlenecks. Everybody traveling between two areas has a limited choice of routes. Funneling all these vehicles into a few, narrow bands of passage creates an artificial congestion. Air travel would eliminate this. Instead of hopping in your car and driving to the nearest freeway to get to the city you would hop in your aircraft and fly in a straight line to your destination. The only people you would encounter on your trip would be people who lived along the same path. And air travel allows for three dimensional movement. So whereas roads force everybody into a narrow strip of asphalt, the sky is wide open. This allows people to be hundreds of feet apart at all times even when there are hundreds of vehicles in the same area. There is simply too much open air for congestion to be an issue.

Lighter than air machines are also failsafe, unlike planes or helicopters that plummet to the ground when they lose power. Which takes away the other safety concern of the Doomsayers.

So there you have it. The skies provide the solution to anarchy's biggest dilemma. They also offer a solution for our environmental woes. The only group that loses if we take to the air is govt. And that's one group that could stand to lose.

Anarchy and force

My fellow anarchists are, for the most part, a delusional lot. They try their damnedest to ignore the reality staring them in the face.

The philosophy of anarchy is very simple; no human being has the right to initiate the use of force against another human being. It is the philosophy of individual liberty, unhindered by imaginary concepts such as "the greater good" or "society". It recognizes that all forms of government are nothing more than one group of people using violence or the threat of violence to control other human beings.

But where most anarchists go wrong is in believing this means anarchy is a society without force or violence. This is simply not the case. Anarchy is just the elimination of one group's monopoly control over the use of violence.

The catch, what many may not want to admit, is that the reason governments exist at all is because some people crave power and will do anything they can to gain it. And these people will still exist if governments are banished from the earth. The only way to ensure these people do not gain control is for everybody to resist them. The only way to resist force is with force.

Now many anarchists will use various machinations to convince themselves this isn't really the case. They will claim that contracts can be used govern interactions between people. But contracts are only paper. Contracts are broken every day, there's no reason to think this would change in an anarchic society. If somebody breaks a contract, you take them to court. If they refuse to go to court, you send "police" to get them. It comes right down to using force to make sure you get what you want.

Other anarchists, more properly called primitivists, insist that anarchy means an end to mass production, to our industrial world. They are convinced that this will rid the world of all coercive force. But violence and coercion predates even our most primitive technology. Removing industry will do nothing to improve our interpersonal relations. If you plant an acre of corn for your family there is nothing to stop others from taking it from you. The corn is not some magical plant that can only be consumed by the one who sows it. If you wish to keep the corn you plant, you must prevent others from taking it. That means using force.

No matter how you look at it, human society is controlled by force. This shouldn't be surprising. Nothing in the universe happens without force. The entire animal kingdom is ordered by force. Force is the lowest common denominator. It is the only thing which guarantees a certain path will be followed. In short, the only way to keep what is yours or get what you've been promised is to have a bigger gun than the guy opposing you.

To serve with honor.

It has never seemed fair to me that women aren't able to serve their country in the same manner as the menfolk. Sure, I know they can join the military these days. But they are still prohibited from experiencing the glory of combat. I just don't see how we can call ourselves an egalitarian nation while we continue to practice such sexism.

But I also realize there is a practical reason for this ban. From a strictly biological perspective, women in general are not as fit for combat as men. Of course, the military could institute physical testing to allow anybody with the necessary strength and stamina to join the warrior class. But I believe there's a simpler way to give women the ability to serve their country with honor and pride.

I hereby propose the creation of the United States Coitus Service. If our young men can serve with honor by laying down their lives for the country then surely our young women can serve with honor by, well, laying down for the nation.

Imagine the parents beaming with pride as their daughters head off to booty camp. And the girls themselves, flush with unbridled enthusiasm. Knowing they are making a noble sacrifice to keep the world safe from blue balls.

The girls would spend weeks conditioning and training. Building the stamina required to suck off an entire bachelor party. They would learn the fine art of manipulating the male genitalia to achieve the maximum results. Just as with their military counterparts, the women of the USCS could take on additional training to become specialists. These cummandos would wear their own insignia to tell the world they were something special.

What a magnificent society it would be. Crime would virtually disappear since most crime is the result of men trying to get laid. With skilled and enthusiastic pussy merely a phone call away there would be no need for men to steal money to buy fancy things in hopes of luring a woman. They could simply dial the local USCS office and have a specialist sent right to their house.

Of course, the USCS wouldn't just operate here at home. It's the American Way to share the American Way with the rest of the world. The USCS would have offices around the world. Our brave young women would travel the globe, meet strange new cultures, and milk their men. Giving real meaning to their motto, “Spreading Joy by Spreading Our Legs”.

Yes, these women would proudly wear their pink miniskirt uniforms. Ready, at a moment's notice, to leap into action and drain the seed from some poor man's swollen testicles. They'd adorn themselves with medals and ribbons to indicate their achievements. Such nobility.

And years down the road, when these proud girls have become proud grandmothers, they will look back with a sense of accomplishment. They'll adjust their “USCS – Retired” ballcaps and smile at their granddaughters. They'll recount amazing stories of adventures in far way lands. Tales of heroism and sacrifice. Harrowing tales of spooge in the eyes and unbathed men. And all across the country little girls will look up at their grandmas with gleams in their eyes. They will wonder what it must be like to swallow a man or to feel his thrusts. And they will dream of the day they can make their grandmas proud by following in their footsteps. Eager to travel the world, moist wipes and lube at hand. Ready to give of themselves, to sacrifice. Ready, to serve with honor.

On sheep and sentience

I've recently come to the realization that sentience is not an inherent human trait. It is quite possible to be biologically human while still lacking the qualities of self-awareness and self-ownership.

This line of thinking began when I first joined Mensa. The first newsletter I received contained an article about a fascinating informal experiment carried out by the author.

With this experiment, the author was trying to determine if there was a correlation between the advertising budgets of large breweries and the relative popularity of their products. The methodology was quite simple. He selected test subjects with proclaimed preferences for one brand or another and had them taste-test several brands without knowing which ones they were drinking. The idea being to see if their actual preference matched their stated preference or whether their stated preference was a product of external influence.

Not surprisingly, he discovered that the subjects' actual preferences did not always fall into line with their stated preferences. This is to be expected. If somebody has always drank the same brand they may be unaware that another brand is more to their liking.

But what was surprising, and what led to my current thinking, was how some of the subjects reacted to the outcome of the test. You would expect a sane person, on discovering they like the taste of A better than B, would then switch to drinking A. But not all of the subjects did. Even after finding their stated preference was less desirable than one of the other options they decided to keep following their original preference. In other words, the brewer was controlling them and getting them to consume the brewer's brand in spite of the fact that the subjects' actually thought another brand was better.

Think about this for a second. If you really like vanilla ice cream, but somebody tells you to eat chocolate instead, would you? When you walk into a restaurant, do you ask the chef what you must eat? That is exactly what some of the subjects of this test did. They knew from their own experience that they liked the taste of one product better than the other. But they insisted on staying loyal to the inferior product.

This caused me to start paying closer attention to the world. I began looking for similar signs of people allowing external control to override their own desires. It was not difficult to find examples. In fact, it's the rule rather than the exception. And it isn't just advertising that causes this peculiarity. Peer pressure and societal taboos are major causes.

I also noticed a similar symptom. People who's actions clearly show their desire for a certain outcome even though their words claim they seek a different outcome. I'm not talking about liars. I'm talking about people who don't even realize they are saying one thing but doing the opposite. A prime example would be people who claim they want to get rich, yet they are spending what money they do have on beer and lottery tickets instead of books or classes that could help them move up the ladder. This is a complete lack of self-awareness.

There are many people who fall into the sub-sentient category. Religious believers controlled by the words of their cleric are hardly fully sentient. Those who turn to government for guidance and support fall short of self-ownership. People who look to celebrities to see how to dress and style their hair are decidedly non-sentient. You can't be self-aware if your entire life is based around somebody else or if you aren't *aware* that your actions are not consistent with your desires.

The good news is that sentience is attainable. Like anything else, you have to first want it. Conveniently enough, the very act of pursuing sentience displays a large degree of sentience. It's a process of introspection and analysis; removing external influences and focusing on your internal motivations.

The catch is that sentience also requires maintenance. You have to be constantly wary of the intrusion of external forces into your psyche. You have to be aware of your self in order to possess self-awareness. That seems like a pointless sentence at first glance, but think about it.

Marxoids

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need". That quote from Karl Marx sums up his philosophy. It has become the rallying cry of his disciples. These people see it as the pinnacle of egalitarianism. These people are blind fools.

Just a simple analysis of the quote should make it's flaws obvious. Instead of making everybody equal, this tyrant's plan divides people into three classes. The first class is the producers. These are the ones with the ability. They are expected to grow the crops, build the roads, and perform all the tasks necessary to maintain a functional society. The second group, readily visible in the quote, is the slackers. These are the people deemed to be unable to provide their own needs. They get to sit at home and do nothing. Their needs will be met by the producers. This is a master/slave relationship. The producers are required to work. The leeches have everything handed to them. How is that egalitarian?

So what about the third class? It may not be obvious in the quote since there seem to be only producers and leeches. But there is a third class, the ruling class. These are the people who decide who is needy and who is able. Somebody has to. Left to their own devices, who would rush to work if they knew they could sit at home and have their needs filled by others? Nobody would. So somebody has to choose who works and who doesn't. And then they have to enforce these decisions.

That's really all anybody needs to know about socialism. It is, by definition, divisive. It sets one group of people above another. Then a third group of people claims dominion over the other two. No matter how the marxoids try to spin it, that is how their beloved system is designed. The alpha, or ruling, class decides who is and is not able. Those deemed able are forced to work. Those deemed unable are spoon fed by the alphas with the fruits of the producers' labor. Some truly are more equal than others.

Whence come rights?

There has been a lot of talk lately about basic human rights. It seems everything except cable TV is considered a basic right. So where do these rights come from? If they truly are basic they must be something we are born with. What, then, are the rights given us by nature itself?

The right to life? Hardly. The universe has a virtually infinite array of ways to kill you. From tiny microbes to storms many miles wide. There are no guarantees you will survive to see the sun set or wake to see it rise.

The right to food and water? A right is something owed to you. If you are stranded on an island, nature is not going to give you a ham sandwich. If you are lost in the desert, nature is not going to provide a bottle of water to sustain you. These are things you will have to provide for yourself.

Health care is the latest item to be declared a basic human right. This assertion is easily debunked. Returning to our hypothetical deserted island; if you fall and break you leg, where does the medical care come from? Is Dr. McCoy going to transport down and patch you up? Of course not. If medical care is a right, it is certainly not a natural one.

Food, clothing, shelter, health, even life itself. None of these things are promised to us by the universe. If rights are a natural thing, inherent from birth, then we have no rights.

So rights, if they exist at all, are purely an artificial construct. They are a way to provide order in society. They are the rules we use to govern our interactions with each other.

Let's return to our deserted island. You wake one morning to find another castaway on the beach. Now there are two humans interacting. That means we can have rights and morality. So what rights do you now have? If the new resident is a carpenter, does that give you the right to demand they build a shelter? Would the presence of a chef grant you the right to food?

In other words, do your rights create an obligation on the part of your neighbor? That would create a paradox. If I am obligated to fulfill your rights, then you are obligated to fulfill mine. Each of us is enslaved to everybody else. At the same time, we are master of everybody else. It is impossible to be master and slave at the same time. That makes it impossible for anything to be considered a right if somebody else is obligated to provide it.

Whether you are the lone person or one in a sea of millions, your rights are the same. They are basic, inherent, unaffected by time or location. If you can produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then it is yours. If you are unwilling or unable to produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then you have no right to demand others do so in your stead. It doesn't matter whether it's a ham sandwich or a life-saving operation. To demand it as a right is to enslave another human and require them to tend your needs.