Spending our own money achieves more than when it is spent by the State... So there is no need to worry about negative consequences in the absence of a State because more people want to live in a harmonious society than do not.
If we all try to achieve the same thing but in our separate ways we get a better result than being forced to work together. There are of course exceptions to this... at least sometimes forced labour does achieve something (an example being the Bridge on the River Kwai) but mostly we achieve more when not enslaved.
Working together through choice is better than being forced into it.
We might not agree on what is a worthwhile undertaking to pursue but there is no reason to delegate decision-making on what is a worthwhile ambition to a majority decision.Let people decide for themselves how best to spend their time.
Imagine the glorious harmonious society we could achieve without the State to mess things up constantly!
...people working together through choice on things that they care about and protecting one-another from threats, through choice. Helping those in distress out of their own volition not because they are worried about being punished for not doing so.
Why would people end up behaving like this? Because the alternative is worse: to behave counter-productively (destructively) would no longer lead to good outcomes. The State would no longer absolve you from blame when you act maliciously because there is never a justification. For example, murder committed by an Army is still murder and so on...
17th February 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment