Elias Alias,
Your viewpoint as far as I know it based upon what I've read up to now is similar to say Karl Hess's viewpoint. I mean that as a compliment, and to be more specific the viewpoint can only see the works of The Cult of Might Makes Right when that shared viewpoint accurately accounts for (or attempts to) that which is called government.
Perhaps it is wrong to categorize individuals, such as making a claim that this one and this other one belong in the group called Anarchists, and then inside that group are those over there who are Free Market Anarchists.
Josiah Warren is commonly claimed to be the First American Anarchist, but he rejected labels in print, and those printed statements that rejected such categorization were probably printed on his own printing press he invented and made himself when facing censorship.
It is from the work of Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner that my individual viewpoint is founded, or based, on specific principles, but I add to that work a helpful principle known as The Golden Rule.
I think I may have passed the hurdles to get access to an individual authorized Forum Topic of my own, on this forum of yours. Oh, and I have also borrowed from Game Theory, particularly The Prisoner's Dilemma, in the process of forming my individual viewpoint on specific topics such as The State.
We will see if you or anyone else can agree with the viewpoint I intend to offer, and if so then you may then become familiar with what I call true government. You may also see the free market, adaptable, defensive, voluntary, value in it. You may even volunteer to be a member. If you do then you may be called a cult member by the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right.
You would be, if you choose to volunteer, a member of The Cult of Do No Harm, or The Cult Which Follows (Actually) The Golden Rule. My guess is that you already do everything (within reason) required to be a member of this fictitious cult, but you prefer to remain anonymous, or at a distance from any other member in any other cult anywhere, according to your power to command your own conscience.
Actual government (not counterfeit) actually has been put in place to follow the golden rule, to do no harm, which in my opinion requires effective defense. Without effective defense, posterity, particularly the weakest among us such as children, are food left to spoil or be eaten by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. In other words, without actual government, or without voluntary mutual defense, those who could prevent it are instead enablers who enable mankind to be led into man-made hell on earth, to be led down that path by those who are best able to do so.
All things good, including government, are counterfeited by people who can get away with that type of operation, and the word counterfeit means opposite. It might be a good idea to at last look at the data that exemplifies good government. Counterfeit government is an up-side-down Free Market, whereby the worst of the worst gain the most power the quickest, it destroys everything as it moves to the goal. Bad government works like entropy. Actual government, or true government, works in the other direction, like ectropy. Talk about sensorship, the word ectropy (and the idea that there can be good government), does not appear in print. Good government affords equal footing access to all, so that all can add their special talent to the market of talent, and in so doing the highest quality and lowest cost cooperators who compete cooperatively produce the vital adaptability required for survival of any complex living species. The best at improving and adapting gain the most power the soonest, rather than the opposite direction, when good government is defended effectively by the volunteers. That works naturally, organically, and at grass roots, locally, in individuals, because people, as a rule, will choose better for worse when their choice to defend their power to choose is actually, truly, defended in fact.
I'll leave this introductory Forum Topic with a relevant quote:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:
"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,
"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.
"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury
