Is religion compatible with a free society?

It seems to me that many of those interested in pursuing the knowledge of a free society have also come to other conclusions outside of our actual acting world. Not all of us have reached these conclusions because ultimately there is no logical deduction to be made to get there as there is with everything else that justifies the free society. These logical deducible axioms aren't abstract fixations on a could be world, no they are natural observations that can be made by acting men about acting men.

It seems though, that along with the idea of our society being of "Rules without Rulers" many others have taken the idea a step further. The new saying a lot of Voluntarists/Anarcho-Capitalists are using is "No Gods No Rulers" obviously showing what their spiritual beliefs are. Now, not all of those that believe in a free society are atheists and that includes me so that should be mentioned.

But why such the broad distaste for religion? Why should a purely individual choice, like so many other choices, be broadcasted with the message? Why turn off individuals that see the evils of the State from our philosophy?

I haven't quite figured that one out yet but it seems it stems from the belief that if you are to have total control and free will over your body, like the axiom of self-ownership implies, then no outside supernatural power should be able to claim it or have the power to do so. If this supernatural entity does then you are obviously not completely free and the axiom crumbles, along with every other conclusion that uses it as its premise.

Can you reconcile this paradox so that you might be able to still justify a free society off this essential axiom? I say yes, and I'm not religious one bit. Here's a great justification for those that believe in a higher being and still want to be able to conform to the idea of self-ownership.

Regarding the second point, self-ownership is no more inconsistent with God's ownership of us than our ownership of private property is inconsistent with God's ownership of the entire universe. Though the religious believer takes God to own everything, this nevertheless is compatible with the belief that He also allows us to take portions of the external world for our own exclusive use. Relative to Him, we are but stewards of what we possess and He owns; but relative to each other, we are owners of what we possess. (Indeed, there are two Commandments Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods giving divine sanction to claims of private ownership.) But surely the same thing is true, and indeed more obviously true, of ourselves: relative to God, we are but stewards of His property, but relative to each other, we are self-owners. (And of course, this entails that, though we may not be answerable to each other with respect to every use we make of our selves, we are answerable to God for every use.8)¹

So there is absolutely no need to leave behind your faith, judge others for their own faith, or worse turn the religious off by portraying your dislike in religion so zealously. We can all make our own personal choices in life especially as something as important and no less individualistic than other choices as religion.



¹ Feser, Edward, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 3, pg.97, Mises Institute

Why not voting is voting and actually voting isn't voting at all

It always seems that people are pestering other people about voting. Not really caring who you vote for as long as you participate in the voting process. The term civil duty is often used to show that we have some sort of duty to society to vote. Voting is the magic key that is going to better our nation one vote at a time!

But why does it seem that every election cycle, no matter who is on the ballot, nothing really changes for the better? In fact it seems that most things get getting worse and worse. When a Republican is president after his term no one likes him, so he's replaced with a Democrat. When that Democrat's term is over nothing has really changed from the previous administration and no one likes him. So a Republican often replaces him and the cycle continues. Each new President has promised something often to change something from the past administration. It never happens though, history shows this. President Obama promised to eliminate The PATRIOT Act and instead signed the continuation of it and even instituted legislation much worse, the NDAA. He also promised to be laxer on Medical Marijuana dispensaries but under his administration has raided more dispensaries than Bush did in 8 years. Our soldiers were supposed to be brought home but they weren't and are now being moved to even more countries. Don't take this as some kind of love for Republicans because Romney has said he'll take away Obamacare. If he gets presidency will he? Absolutely not. Nothing will change. Your vote means nothing.

So what has your vote done to better America? Absolutely nothing. Instead your vote has legitimatized every bad piece of legislation that has stripped individuals of their freedoms. Your vote has only helped justify our system of injustice.

Can voting ever be good?

In rare circumstances I believe voting can help. This rare circumstance is when you are voting for someone who actually wants to change the status quo, someone who wants to reduce as much of the State as humanly possible. This is when your vote counts. But it seems most people only vote for those who don't really want us to be free men and women.

So don't vote unless there is someone truly worth voting for. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into the constant spiral of voting for the lesser of two evils.

When you don't vote you are truly voting because you are sending a message to those in power. The message that we no longer believe that they have any ability to wield power for the greater good. The message that we are in disgust with what those in power do. The message that truly has power behind it because when you don't vote you are showing that you don't consent to being ruled.

When the populace as a whole no longer consents to being ruled there are no more rulers, there are only individuals deciding peacefully among each other how to live their own lives.

Live freely, don't vote, don't justify the State.

NFL Referee strike: When going on strike is good for the market.

Whoa whoa whoa now. Going on strike is good? Don't we hate unions especially when they go on strike? Aren't unions the antithesis of a free market?

Yes going on strike can be good. No we shouldn't hate unions. No unions aren't the antithesis of the free market, but a part of a healthy market.

How could I possibly be saying such things? It's pretty simple, people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want including co-workers. These group of individuals which create a union could very well say that they want to go on strike for higher wages, to keep past benefits, or whatever.

The past NFL Referee strike is a perfect example of a union strike that promotes a healthy market. At the end of the agreement it was a win win for everyone involved. And most importantly this relationship was resolved without the use of force from the government. This is how the market works and how voluntary interactions between the owners, the refs, and the consumers can resolve issues peacefully.

How does this all work though? How can this really be a good thing?

Well if we look at the causes of all union strikes it's typically for better pensions or higher wages. The market has its own way of dictating what wages should be, how this is done is not the intent of this post. If the union decides to go on strike no one should be able to stop them. On the other hand you should not be able to stop other workers from filling in the voids, just as the NFL hired replacement refs.

But the market responds in interesting ways when people's satisfactions aren't being met. The replacement refs just were not up to par and hence were not efficient in overseeing the game. The drop in quality was affecting the game and bringing a poorer product to consumers who in turn brought it to the attention of the commissioner that they were angry.

Purely through market forces and no threat of force from the government a resolution was made.

So yes unions and union strikes are healthy for a market because they can insure that quality products are given to consumers, like the NFL referee debacle. Unions don't need the government to help keep their jobs. Union heads who want to use government aren't doing it for the good of the workers. No they do it to justify their top positions and radically high pay which is taken from the union members. Government cannot help you it only distorts the market and helps the politically connected.

Let's look up to the NFL agreement to realize that humans can interact peacefully to settle disputes. Have faith in each other not in the State.