Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Natural and logical part 2  (Read 1397 times)

kyfornow

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 222
Natural and logical part 2
« on: October 30, 2009, 08:45:29 pm »

Now to examine this concept within the framework of a family or culture group, we must understand that because we are rational thinking beings, we develop morals and values.  Simply stated, the rules in my house may be different from the rules in your house.  If I live in a family that is Christian, and they believe everyone should go to church, then going to church is their choice.  If I am told, “So long as you live in this house, you will go to church,” then logically I can deduce that if I do not go to church, I am going to be asked or made to leave the home.  Logical consequences are established through expectations of human communication. I can make the choice that will lead to my being removed from the home.  My personal observation is that any parenting that is not based only in natural consequences as much as possible, is inherently flawed, but that’s a whole separate thesis.

Anyway, when government dictates that I must obey its directives or face consequences, the rules change drastically.  What I am about to describe has already been expressed well by many freedom lovers, many times over, but I will proceed anyway. 

When I choose to disregard the rules and laws set by government, I cannot leave the domain in which it manifests.  Imagine if I decide to move out of my parents’ house because I don’t like their rules, and they tackle me or shoot me if I try to leave the yard.  Imagine if they come try to track me down  if I sneak away, and drag me back to the house.  This would cause me to want to live in their home even less than I did before.  They would only be maintaining my presence through fear and the threat of force. 

Government not only contradicts natural and logical consequences merely by its existence, but also distorts the attempt of individuals to be able to adapt themselves to the logical consequences of  the individuals and communities around them.  If I am 16 years  old (an arbitrary number based on the revolution of the earth around the sun), and do not like the rules in the home I live in, I cannot choose to leave that home.  Government will force me to return to the home or will put me in a cage or group home.  In most places I cannot have control of myself until I am 18 (another arbitrary number) 

Real logical consequences would provide me with the choice to go out on my own, and adapt to the reactions and attitudes of those around me of being a “16 year old” who takes care of themselves.  The dilemma lies in the fact that, because society has been so indoctrinated and coerced by government for so long, most people’s perception of things around them is flawed because their attitudes and values were not able to develop within the context of true natural and logical consequences. 

The propaganda implies that you are a criminal if you have violated a statutory law.  Someone who uses marijuana, has a couch in their yard, or owns a gun without telling the police is, in the eyes of the government indoctrinated society, a criminal.  If you dictate to people the definition of a criminal (or anything else) and their choice to not comply with this ideology is stifled by the threat of force, then the artificial set of natural and logical consequences can thrive quite easily.   Something that must use fear and force, will most likely not survive freestanding. 

A free market society is based on natural and logical consequences, which government is not.  Why is that important?  It means that wanting a society with little or no government is not merely idealistic (I.e. it originates from a philosophical, religious, or otherwise moral or ethical perspective) It is one that is founded in evidence-based testing, which government is not.

Government has only survived this long, because throughout human existence it has been able to do so through the threat of and consistent use of force.  But survival of the fittest in the human experience is not always about being the biggest, strongest, or fastest.  It is about  utilizing a set of resources to achieve an objective.  When two or more entities are at conflict, the survivor is the one who uses their resources effectively while also eliminating or reducing other entities ability to use resources to achieve the same or another objective. 

As more free-minded people come together and work together, their ability to utilize their resources to peacefully resist government will increase exponentially.  This will also cause government’s ability to utilize its resources (to stop the peaceful resisting) to nullify.  Unless government can evolve , to be able to adapt to a state that is founded on natural and logical consequences, it cannot and will not survive in New Hampshire. 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up