Autonomy and Slavery

In every association of two or more people the challenge of creating a society can be boiled down to the establishment of a balance between the extremes of anarchy and slavery. The individuals of every social system desire maximum autonomy for themselves. If an individual was living in complete isolation then he would have complete freedom to choose every facet of his life, living conditions, lifestyle and conduct for himself answerable only to the natural laws of the reality in which he lives. The existence of intelligent third-party agents introduces many new dimensions of two-way accountability for each pair of individuals in the system.

Political and social strife are always the result of the dissonance created by differences between individuals' beliefs as to where the anarchy-slavery balance should be drawn. These beliefs are always predicated in some fashion on the values and philosophical premises of the individual. In order to foster a society that relishes thought, creativity, and successful pursuit of happiness, no man can be a slave or create slaves. No man can be expected to live (work or actively support contrary to his expressed wishes) for any other man. Corollary to that, no man can expect to be supported by any other contrary to their wishes. No man can expect, much less demand, what was not rightfully earned.

It is reasonable that in order to allow a man freedom to pursue his happiness he must also be allowed to pursue his own demise and misery. Freedom to pursue one is freedom to pursue the other. This is as natural a conclusion as that a choice with only one option is not a choice at all. It is a natural law that every freedom necessarily comes with accountability for use of that freedom. We are always accountable to ourselves, to that part of ourselves that cannot be deceived or rationalized into blindness. Mere desire can never change reality.

All processes for progress/improvement or regression/deterioration are cyclical. All causes have effects and effects reinforce the causes. A man is creative, has a good idea, implements it, improves the lives of a community, the community rewards him with money, veneration, and whatever else might just be a part of this man's realization of greater happiness than he previously had which only motivates him to continue to work because he knows it will make him happier. Conversely a depressed man may lose his job, get on welfare, feel sorry for himself and lose all sense of self-respect, stop contributing in any way to his social system and become a pitiable nothing. Forced welfare for such a person does neither him nor the forced taxpayer any good.

'Victim' cannot be universally defined for a society without the creation of slaves. Maximization of freedom for all agents in a social system occurs when all agents are autonomous: all people must have the freedom to act and reap the natural rewards of their actions (i.e. society should not work to oppose natural law) and all people must have complete stewardship over those rewards. A state welfare system is a sign of social slavery. For a free society all unearned aid can only be the result of charitable donations: goods or services willingly ceded by those with full title and stewardship.

In order to have a successful/happy society that society cannot quell the willful actions and behaviors that must lead to happiness.

The Simple Rule

A lot of people like to make it clear that all opinions are of equal value; right answers do not exist for real-world issues and such. Sometimes it turns out that certain opinions are more equal than others: some opinions should not only be tolerated, not only accepted, not only promulgated but in fact if you do not embrace this particular opinion you are a monster, a bigot, or an ignoramus.

While the notions of 'right' and 'good' require painstaking definition and a proper framework for meaning, logic and reasoning should be more straight-forward for the honest and sincere soul. A person's reasoning reveals his values and his conclusions make known his premises. If we are to properly embrace freedom of speech and thought and be adamant proponents for physical and ideological liberty then we must recognize the diversity of values and premises that people will bring to the table. The only way to consistently recognize the freedoms and liberty enjoyed by each citizen is to abide a simple rule: no man can live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for him.

My values and philosophical premises can be whatever I choose... so long as they are not predicated on you. If I were to believe that health care is a universal right of man then I would have to back up my belief by myself and not rely on you for a dime. Your belief that you are financially obligated to each member of humanity does not and can not obligate me. Else I would not be at liberty to choose my own values independent of yours. You are not only implying but demanding that your values take precedence over mine in the running of my life.

Besides that you are miserable because your premises suggest that you are afraid of death (which you cannot avoid) and your implied value is that your life should be primarily spent prolonging your and everyone else's life, which is circular and devoid of meaning.

If you want to be happy then accept the inevitable and become a proactive controller and director of your own life. Choose to help others as you can but do not force your 'help' on anyone. If I cannot convince you to think correctly with correct premises and choose to be happy, then I will certainly deny you the right to obstruct my doing so.