Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertarian principle. That is to say, when one applies the non-aggression principle and the principle of self-ownership to the consistency principle/principle of non-contradiction there is no way for them NOT to be an Anarchist.
Via the consistency principle, whatever is wrong for you or I, as individuals, is also wrong for government and vice versa. Applying this to the NAP, if it was not morally wrong for the state to take property from individuals without their consent.
it would also not be morally wrong for individuals to take from one another, so if taxation without consent was not theft then it is also ethical for you or I to take property from one another, so as long as theft remains unethical so also does taxation.
Via the Non-Aggression principle, it is ethically wrong for one to initiate coercion against others. Applying the consistency principle/law of non-contradiction, it is also wrong for a government to initiate aggression as well.Were this not the case, the acts of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other tyrants were entirely justified, because government is the exception to the universal principle according to statists.
If the initiation of coercion is morally wrong but the very existence of the State (the government, the supreme, the eternal) [Rothbard] as a monopoly entity relies on coercion in order to be maintained, the very existence of said state is therefore immoral. Once again applying the consistency principle, if the existence of government is not immoral but is an exception to the rule, then again Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did nothing wrong because government is an exception to the universal rule.
So, abiding by the consistency principle, you either believe that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did nothing wrong or you believe that the very existence of government is immoral. Any statement other than one of these two would be self-contradictory.
Next, the principle of self-ownership. If no one owns you then you can do whatever you want with no consequence, if someone else owns you then you are, by definition a slave, and therefore the only logical statement one can make would be that they own themselves.
The State claims ownership of you by making laws and forcing you to abide by them. By doing so, they make you a slave by definition. Abiding by their laws, which are enforced by coercion, makes you an obedient slave.
By extention, not only do you own yourself but you also own the product of your labor. If you did not own the product of your labor, were you to work at all you would be a slave, whether it be to an individual or a collective. Likewise, were the State or any other entity to take even a portion of your labor, they would, by extension also be taking a portion of the time and efford put into creating that product, likening you unto a slave.
Law and order can exist without the monopoly state. If the very existence of the State is immoral, there must be a better way of organizing society. And there is.
Anarcho-capitalism is the most ethical way of building a society largely free of coercion and comprised of voluntary human interaction rather than an appeal to force or authority.
Help spread Anarchy! Donate to Robert, Chris, and Mance's Indiegogo campaign, "Stateless Productions"
YOU ARE READING
The Michael Perspective! Part 2.5
RandomSince my other book has been temporary deleted due to a glitch in Wattpad's system (or, at least, that's what the ambassadors tell me), I've taken it upon myself to write a new book less than half way through the completion of my other one, hence th...
