Ironically, it took his death for me to realize some of the things about him and even discover one of his songs I didn’t know about. I heard his songs so many times, they were impossible to avoid, but not being a big fan of pop I always somehow took it for granted, and all of the incredible intellectual changes I’ve gone through recently, rediscovering the world changing power of Michael Jackson somehow just didn’t come around. And now I regret this.

However I am now newly inspired and motivated.

Here are a few incredible world changing songs by Michael Jackson. Let them live on.

Feel free to suggest more in the comment. And let the legend live long in our memeverse!

But what an interesting coincidence, or perhaps a testament to how incredibly powerful this was for so many people to the world.. I accidentally stumbled on the video in question. I was looking for reviews of a book on self improvement with introspection exercise I’m following (“How to finally find what you love to do and get paid doing it” by Brian Kim) and on one blog where I found it, one of the entries was “5 Feel-Good YouTube Videos” which claimed that “any one of them could make your day” and that “you might choke on your own happy hormones”. I was somewhat skeptical as I tend to have a general dislike of cheesy meaningless feel goods in a sense that they’re like drugs which wane away and wont make you permanently happy (knowing who you are and becoming the full of your potential would).

The image linking to the first video portrays this ugly woman (sorry..) and I clicked expecting something cheesy and perhaps boring..

Oh boy was I wrong. The video in question is of Susan Boyle achieving her dreams in a dreamy song called fittingly “I dreamed a dream” and literally helping possibly up to 100 million people in the world become genuinely inspired, hopeful and more open minded in these gloomy times of crisis. It is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly in all its glory, a flower in the middle of the desert of cynicism, like some sort of a miracle. Well see for yourself:

That video was viewed almost 40 million times so far and there are other uploads getting millions so far. That’s just youtube though. As linked from the video’s description there are already numerous fan sites. Even Wall Street Journal blogged about her. I hear there is an album for sale, the only album she ever made, for incredible $1000 USD (due to high demand no doubt). This lady is an instant super star and is quite possibly gonna quickly become quite wealthy, as she deserves.

What’s so special about her though? When I step back I realize that she certainly is not unique in her talent in that there’s a lot of singers out there with great singing talent. What’s so special about this is that against all odds she was persistent, she applied again even after she was turned down before for talent shows like this. This shows courage and belief in yourself and unwillingness to see failure as the end. She knew what she had. She had a dream and when this chance was given to her, she achieved it in a blaze of glory. Her path towards this was probably difficult due to her looks.. which says something about the society we’re living in, but what was on the inside far outweighed what was outside. This context makes for a story that enamored millions and gave her the fame and possibly resulting wealth that she can now enjoy, in the middle of the economic depression, dispensing inspiration to others as well that no matter who you are, if you know yourself, be yourself, you can make it.

Some people say her talent is god given (or even go as far as imply that she’s an angel from heaven, human capacity for hyperbole is certainly amazing). I don’t believe that. Her talent is all her. It should be insulting to ascribe all achievements of an individual to a mythical entity and thus rob the individual of his credit and inherent worth.

We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it. We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this—it was forced upon us.

To The Governments of Earth:

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects.

Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives. We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.

For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems.

If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us. From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences.

You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

To The People of Earth:

We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you. All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.

We wish you peace.

To Those Who Will Condemn Us:

We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you. Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

What We Believe:

• #1:
  Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.
• #2:
  We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.
• #3:
  We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.
• #4:
  We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene—before, during or after.
• #5:
  We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.
• #6:
  We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.
• #7:
  We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.
• #8:
  We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.
• #9:
  We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.
• #10:
  We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.
• #11:
  We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others—either directly or through intermediaries—and those who have no such desires.
• #12:
  Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

Our Plans:

We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice. We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm—ours and the old realm—although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

Wikipedia says that “wisdom is an ideal that has been celebrated since antiquity as the knowledge needed to live a good life”. Who doesn’t want to lead a good life? And indeed who doesn’t want to appear wise, regardless of whether they do lead a good life?

Every now and then I think all of us ask certain questions which go beyond the mere trivialities of life (fashionable clothing, tasty foods, small talk, gossip, partying, you name it). We ask what we perceive as “big” questions like “what’s the whole point of life” or “what happens after we die” or “why is anything true or false”… We see these questions as “big”, I would presume, mostly because they are hard to answer.

Ultimately, I think most of us form some kind of a stance on these questions. Deep down we probably know that we don’t know much about them, but if someone was to ask us what we think chances are we’ll blurt out some sort of a positive answer. Sometimes what we answer will be what we perceive the social circle we’re in wants us to answer (unfortunately, in my opinion, conformism is a terrible thing), but sometimes we’ll answer honestly without paying much attention to the fact that by doing so we are actually taking a philosophical position.

So on some levels we might all be philosophers to a certain extent, to the extent to which we ask big questions, think about them and take positions. This is enough to form a basis for further growth of our understanding and our wisdom. Unfortunately the society we are living in does not tend to foster building upon that much further. Everyone seems to be obsessed with control and regulation of each other where too much independent thought, indeed independent philosophy, is not only criticized, but sometimes violently repressed.

The dangerous result of that is a void being created in individual’s understanding of the world around as (s)he continues to experience it. This void, in absence of actively practiced philosophy and pursuit of truth and wisdom is instead filled by random superstition, mythologies or just utter nihilism (no point to anything, no truth.. we may as well kill ourselves where we stand, but why do it.. at least we can get wasted every weekend or enjoy those pitiful little pleasures.. you get the picture).

But that isn’t quite the best we can do as human beings isn’t it? Can’t anyone feel that there is a potential for so much more? My hope is to help build a new age of enlightenment with those who are already on the job so that one day every human being on Earth is a philosopher whose capacity to reason matches or exceeds the greatest philosophers in history. We can do that.

And just think of the consequences. The sole reason for the existence of ANY problem or any evil that exists in the world is nothing more than a lack of knowledge. Philosophy, combined with science, is the absolute fundamental practice to achieving knowledge.

The think tank persona in the episode talked about expanding one’s abilities by exploring the unknown. Given the context that would more likely be “cracking” the unknown, that is, making it known. Actually, every problem is a problem for no other reason than lack of knowledge anyway.

I identified with this immediately in terms of my self improvement and self government efforts and individualist thinking. I believe an individual not only has the right to, but the ability as well, to become far more than (s)he currently is. The individual in the think tank, however, was willing to use coercion in his quests. People were nothing more than another variables in his equations, something to be manipulated, by coercion if necessary, to achieve the desired result, or “solution” to his particular problem.

And so I thought.. if I were someone who developed his thinking skills to the point at which I actually can often manipulate other people to my ends, even through coercion, wouldn’t it be tempting to try that? After all, being “caught” or retaliated against is just another factor in the equation to deal with, and can theoretically be dealt with. Of course, I have a moral principle of non-coercion, so the answer is that while I would be tempted, I would find more greatness and satisfaction in achieving my ends without the use of coercion.

But the best realization came to me today just a short while ago.. It’s not really just about a moral principle for the sake of a principle. There is something intrinsic about coercion - it is actually always an anti-thesis to your victory, to your solution. If among your manipulative strategies you include coercion (including force and fraud) you are by definition leaving enemies behind, people who WILL eventually feel hurt and naturally have a desire to retaliate against you. Therefore, by using coercion in your strategies you keep on seeding the seeds of your own doom, your own ultimate or immediate failure.

If, on the other hand, you consider coercion itself to be an inevitable problem creating tool rather than an effective solution solving tool and therefore ban it from all your strategies and success formulas, you are gonna leave behind yourself a trail of people whom not only have no grudge against you, but have also genuinely benefited from an encounter with you. They wont tell people you’re a fraudster and conspire to take you down in retaliation (like they did in the mention Voyager episode). They will recommend you. Thus would would keep planting seeds of your ultimate or immediate success.

Coercion is a value destructor. Value cannot exist without a person assigning it to something therefore all value is subjective and individual. Your interaction with a person can either have him or her have more in value (material or immaterial, things, feelings, knowledge etc.), less in value or equal as before. Coercion is always a sure way of leaving someone not only with less in value, but feeling determined to in seeking justice have YOU have less in value as well. Therefore coercion is a tool of poverty and failure generation whereas voluntary interaction void of all coercion is a wealth and success generation tool.

Coerce and you shall be coerced. Violate and you shall be violated. Give and you shall receive. Bottom line is, what you do to others you can expect others to do to you. If you want to be rich, happy and wealthy make others rich, happy and wealthy.

I have to say this reminded me of a very recent comic that was done by Dale Everett on Anarchy In Your Head named Property as Theft. It’s meant to be funny, but as usual on AIYH to also make a point. While it’s somewhat fitting though, the property as coercion argument might not be exactly the same as the “property as theft” argument and can become quite sophisticated in that once someone establishes such a claim (s)he can then pose a few disclaimers like “despite it being coercion, it is sensible to allow some of it or else none of the things you acquire and need to use would be safe from simply disappearing because someone took them”, or similar arguments.

Of course, that’s incredibly flawed in my view, if anything then because it reflects quite imprecise thinking. The reasoning for allowing some “property as coercion” is pretty arbitrary and as such subjective. It’s very hard to pose such a disclaimer and claim it as an universal rule that everyone should follow, even if the rule was decided on by the majority of voters. In other words, if your claim is that property is coercion then the best way to stay logically consistent and avoid arbitrary reasoning is to reject all claims of property and indeed allow people to take your things as they see fit. At least if you actually believe coercion is morally reprehensible.

But let’s move on the the core of the issue, the claim itself: “property is coercion”. Let’s define both “property” and “coercion”.

Property

The claim “property is coercion” as well as one that “property is theft” has and usually is made in defiance to the libertarian and voluntaryist belief in self-ownership and absolute property rights as necessary for one to have liberty. In fact many, including myself, would often claim that property is synonymous to liberty.

As a voluntaryist myself I define property as an object being owned. And for an object to be owned someone must make a valid claim of ownership over it. A valid claim of ownership implies a statement of the claim and actions taken to substantiate that claim such as obtaining a statement of the previous owner agreeing to the change of ownership or a proof that no previous owner was found and clearly marking of new property as owned by the new owner (so as to make it clear what exactly is owned).

The process of making something owned is seen as natural since each of the steps of the process can be substantiated by consistent logical rationale supported by empirical evidence. If a claim is never stated or in any way communicated it cannot be expected of anyone to know of it (empirically checked, one does not know what one does not perceive). A claim alone isn’t enough for the process to be complete, however, because anyone could arbitrarily claim what was already claimed, creating a logical conflict. So a claim must be substantiated.

If nobody owned it before, this has to be demonstrated by proving that nobody went through the same process of making the object in question owned, thus the object must not be marked as owned and there must not be any accessible evidence of it being claimed before (empirically checked, again one does not know what one does not perceive, if no evidence is perceived of someone owning before, no assumption of prior ownership can be made). Disputes may arise in case the evidence existed but was never available (and of course in case someone tries to take over property by falsely claiming to be a prior owner), but such disputes would require arbitration by an agreed upon third party preferably specialized for researching prior ownership or knowing someone who is specialized in it.

If the object was owned by someone before then it must be clearly demonstrated that the prior owner agreed to change ownership to the current claimant. This also empirically checks out assuming prior owner used the same process to become a valid owner and because by definition of ownership only he has the right or ability to give it to someone else, for free or for a fee. Every other observable case of property transfer usually involves either open violence or stealth action both of which circumvent consent.

Ownership is defined as exclusive and therefore absolute control over an object claimed as owned. This notion of ownership, at least from a libertarian and voluntaryist perspective comes from the concept of self-ownership which is in fact the source of all ownership.

It must be noted that the object in question can be anything in existence, if anything then simply because anything in existence CAN conceivably be claimed by someone. Therefore a claimant can claim ownership of other people, but can also claim ownership over his own self (his body).

However, making a valid claim of ownership as defined above, over other people, is impossible because one cannot come to possession of somebody elses body before that exact someone else, for he lives in or as that body, that individual. He already has ownership (exclusive and absolute control) over his self before anybody else and cannot help not to have this control. Every time you use your eyes, speak or think you are taking advantage of exclusive control over your self.

This is also empirical because the proof is your very existence as what you are including every act that you undertake in your living.

So all this considered, is property as defined by libertarians and voluntaryist and presented here by me, coercion?

Coercion

Again, I am speaking from a libertarian and voluntaryist perspective, most of all my own perspective as a voluntaryist. I need not to speak anyhow else since the claim is made against beliefs of people like me.

I define coercion as the use of force or fraud to compel someone to behave or be in a certain way, such as do something or not do something. Force is any act undertaken with the purpose of instilling in someone fear of loss of ones self or any act done against ones self which (s)he did not agree with. Fraud is included in the definition of “coercion” because it is another method of compelling people to do or not do what they otherwise would or wouldn’t, by deliberately making claims that the claimant is fully aware are false in order to make people do something.

The core of coercion is the violation of someone’s self. If there was no self to violate in the first place the concept of coercion would have no bearing in reality. If an individual did not have self to worry about, there would be no coercion to worry about either. There would be nobody to feel fear, nobody to agree or disagree; to provide consent or protest against what is being done to him or her. But neither of that is true. As observed in the previous section, defining property, self is the core example of property and is completely irrefutable because every claim that was supposed to refute self-ownership requires self ownership to utter.

So is property coercion? Clearly, for coercion to exist property must exist, at least as your own self. While this in itself is telling with regards to the relationship between property and coercion, since the other is obviously dependent on the former, one may claim self-ownership as valid property and ownership over other things as invalid, thus saying that claiming other things as property and defending them is coercion.

But self-ownership implies exclusive and absolute control over your self, your body including your brain, eyes, ears, skin, hands, legs etc. All of these allow you to act and every act has a purpose, something you pursue. Obviously, every act is designed to bring about certain results and those specific results being caused by your acts would not exist if you did not undertake your acts in the first place. Therefore there is a direct causality between the existence of results you created (with your acts) and your self, the thing you own.

The purpose for which you did your acts were those results and this purpose is something that is obviously within you, for which you exist in the moments you acted in pursuit of those results. Bottom line is that if you existed without purpose it would be like existing without acts and if you existed without acting you would be as good as “dead in the water”, an inanimate organism - dead. Also, since as a human being you are self aware your purpose is something that you yourself choose, consciously or unconsciously, if you did not choose yet still acted, you would be like an automaton.

So if someone denies you the results of your actions (s)he is denying you the purpose for which you existed in moments at which you acted in pursuit of that purpose. They are therefore treating you as if you were an inanimate organism. If they however take the results of your actions, results which you produced because you chose so, they would deny you your will, your ability to choose for yourself and thus treating you as an automaton meant to merely produce for the sake of another.

The results spoken of can be anything. Something you created or something you obtained. The results ARE property and considering the above interdependency between your self and the results of your existence as your self, it is an extension of you. Every denial of property as can be seen above is a denial of you as a human being and every act which would take or use what you created or obtained against your will is an act of coercion because, according to the specified definition, it is every act done against your self (you and your property) which you didn’t consent to.

Finally there is the issue of not doing to another what you would not have another do to you. One can say that Joe defending his property is denying Steve who would take it against Joe’s will a result of his own acts and therefore denying Steve’s humanity. But when Steve’s act itself was denying Joe’s humanity, Steve initiated aggression and therefore was the one to be defended against. By this act alone Steve denied Joe what Steve himself had and therefore had Joe deny the same back to the extent necessary to protect his own. In other words, when the human selves come into conflict the natural resolution is towards equilibrium. This too is not an arbitrary statement as it is almost universally observable that humans will defend against an attack and protect what they deem legitimately their own.

The fact that even states, which themselves practice coercion and theft on a regular basis, could not be established without some extent of recognition towards property rights (reflecting the human need for property rights) and the fact that ever since we know of human existence on Earth we know of the concept of trade and therefore property, further validates property as a natural part of being human and coercion as in fact violation of that same property.

Why is coercion morally reprehensible?

Without using any arbitrary reasoning to answer this, simply because I don’t want to be coerced. Therefore it is only those who do not wish to be coerced themselves whom can treat non-coercion as a moral principle. And that’s the only way to logically and empirically explain any sort of a moral principle. You hold something immoral because you do not want it to be done to yourself. I could call this reciprocity and claim that this is a natural law, but since even that would carry a risk of being seen as making arbitrary judgments I’ll just again turn to empirical evidence that shows pretty clearly at least that likelihood of something being done to yourself increases significantly if you do that something to others.

It is known in physics that every action has an equal and opposed reaction. If you hit a wall it will “defend” itself, or react, by putting pressure on your arms and depending on the strength of your own strike, harm it.

And that’s in a nutshell why I find coercion wrong. Of course, the issue of coercion is peculiar in that while believing in non-coercion will have me not coerce others it would also have me defend against coercion done by others some of whom may claim that my act of self-defense is in fact coercing them to act according to my own non-coercion moral. However, if they really believed in coercion as moral then they shouldn’t have any grudge against me defending myself even if they see my defense as coercion. This is why s consistently held moral of non-coercion actually cannot be forced on others.

Conclusion:

So to recap, property is not coercion because without property coercion wouldn’t exist either. Coercion IS a violation of property. The reason is the fact that you irrefutably own yourself and therefore your life and your liberty (your actions). Property is merely an inevitable result of the two. Denial of property is a denial of purpose to life and liberty and ultimately the denial of your own self as a human being.

And all of this can be checked for logical consistency and empirical evidence. All it takes is precise thinking (observing things to their most fundamental components rather than taking a merely cursory look and accepting vague and non-exactly defined terms), intellectual honesty (try to keep cognitive biases in check) and an honest look at yourself and reality around you.

That’s how it’s always been apparently in predominantly statist societies. First there’s economic crisis and then comes, almost inevitably, a political crisis. As people believe governments (coercive monopolies) are necessary for the maintenance of stable and ordered societies they also tend to blame that same government when anything goes wrong. Most of them didn’t quite grasp the idea of being responsible for themselves so all this is no surprise. And therefore it’s no surprise that political crisis arises.

And the whole gang warfare thing which we’re perpetually living with (and usually call things like “political campaigning”, “elections” etc.) escalates to a whole new level, where the violence inherent in the whole system finally surfaces in all its bloody glory. You see, there has never been political stability because that is an oxymoron. Politics by definition involves ones coercing others to live by their values, therefore force and violence are always the core of the game. It’s just that these facts are through elaborate conceptual masking, abstractions and doublethink hidden from view.

Until it leads to the economic crisis of these proportions.

Then as they say “shit begins to hit the fan”, or in other words, the violence inherent in the system surfaces. Gang warfare you’re living with all along takes to the streets and gun fires become much more common. Rioting, civil wars, installment of oppressive regimes (in the Great Depression era, which led to WW2) or just outright collapse into unprincipled anarchy where while freedoms suddenly increase across the board, people still don’t believe in non-initiation of force as a matter of principle and so some blood shed continues (modern day Somalia) since gangs (aspiring governments that is) vie for power.

So more rioting, government collapses, civil wars, it can all happen, across americas and across europe. What will happen is just an inevitable consequence of all that has been believed and subsequently done in the past. You believe coercion is fine? Well here are the results. Are you happy? I’ll venture to guess not. Are you gonna learn something from this? I hope so. But things must become worse before they become better.

This crisis is a natural reaction of the markets to their constant harassment with coercive practices. As such it is a good development - a correction, in economists terms. However you cannot jump off a sky scraper, no matter if it reaches to the troposphere, and expect not to hit the ground at some point. Your belief that you can jump off the skyscraper and not hit the ground wont change the facts.

Your belief that justifying some coercion in the way we deal with each other (AKA politics) wont result in poverty, chaos and death. Think again. You’ve believed in it, now you shall reap the benefits.

But should you survive the consequences, you have a chance for a new start.

Ban all politics from your life. Reject all coercion and initiation of violence. Embrace voluntary interaction (free market). Think creatively rather than competitively. Believe in your abilities. Take responsibility for your own self. Don’t ask others to live for your own sake.

Then we’ll rise out of this chaos and into the better world.

But before that, brace yourself (be prepared and informed), for the consequences of past actions and beliefs must materialize. What will be will be. What will be must be.

“But do you have faith in the system that selects our leaders? Do you vote hoping you can gather enough on your side to overpower your opponent? Do you start playing that violent game, knowing all the rules in advance, and then complain when you lose?”

“People break laws all the time. We break them without even knowing because there are millions of words of laws on the books and we can’t possibly know them all. Have you ever secretly broken a law because you knew you weren’t harming anyone? Do you then publicly proclaim that we must comply with the law until we work through the system to have it changed? We all have our varying ideas of acceptable boundaries for the roles of governments. Some are guided by ancient documents; others by heart-felt principles of individual sovereignty. There is the appearance of lines in the sand and yet we remain complicit when our lines are repeatedly crossed. How serious of a transgression would it take before people insist that a certain law should be disobeyed immediately?”

Yep. And someone tells me laws are derived from reasoning.. Sure, but whose reasoning? Whose reasoning is it that should be accepted as universally correct and why?

No, keep that reasoning for yourself and your own life and let me reason for my own. Is that so much to ask?

No it’s not. And if you disagree all you can is pull up a gun against me, ultimately, really.. coercion. That’s the only weapon you have against free individuals. And it’s lame, pathetic and silly. If that’s your argument “oooh we must force people to be GOOD for the common GOOD by my definition of GOOD cause I’m GOOD”, you can literally shove it up your ass.. and pull the trigger, alright?

Cheerio statists. The beginning of your end has passed.

The effect of such lack of focus or clarity is that we basically don’t know what we’re talking about and end up making judgments that are terribly at odds with reality. Yet this ends up leading our action in false hope for desired positive results. Focusing on singular and thinking in singular rather than plural, is a key to precise thinking.

This came to me when I was trying to explain why I don’t believe in the existence of a “collective” in reality and thus why I don’t believe in “collective rights”. The argument is that the “collective” is in fact solely a mental abstraction describing multitude or plural. Two or more human beings can then be described as a collective. Two or more trees can be described as a collective (and synonymously a “forest”, another similar mental concept) and two or more cells can be described as a collective (or synonymously a multicellular organism).

As such this mental abstraction is similar to numbers. The only difference between saying “collective” and saying a number like “4″ is that in the former you don’t specify exactly how many, merely that there are more than one (plural) whereas in the latter you’re specifying how many. But a number 4 itself doesn’t exist in reality. Looking at 4 people you see “4″ in your head merely because you have the mental capacity to count. If you didn’t then you wouldn’t have the mental concept of “4″ to use in your description of what you see. Same goes with the concept of a “collective”. You see “more than one”.

But does a collective actually exist in reality? This isn’t the same question as the question “do individuals referred to by “4 people” exist or “do cells referred to as an “organism” exist”. It is a question like “do 4 people exist as an individual” or “does a forest exist as a tree” or “does an organism exist as a cell” or “does a molecul exist as an atom” and so on.

The formula is: Does a plural of X exist as a singular X where X is equal? The answer is always inevitably negative because it is:

• A contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
• Many cannot be without the one. Plural cannot exist without a singular, but a singular can exist without a plural

A plural of trees cannot be a tree, it can be an individual forest. A plural of cells cannot be a cell, but it can be an individual organism. A plural of atoms cannot be an atom, but it can be an individual molecule. A plural of human beings cannot be a human being, but an individual society, for lack of a better term, or something else that we as human beings cannot from our vantage point exactly determine, or perhaps nothing at all; end of line as far as that type of form is concerned.

So when it comes to the concept of a collective it may be an useful abstraction sometimes, but it is clear that a collective of X cannot have the properties of X and itself is not X. It instead becomes something else that is again itself individual; unique. Or nothing else. This is why it makes absolutely no sense to think in terms of there being a human “collective” for the good of which individuals should sacrifice expecting that this good would somehow trickle down to more good for all.

Additionally, the object of focus can never be anything other than individual, singular. Even when trying to somehow point to a “collective” that exists in reality we end up describing “it” as “it”, a singular thing, thus further validating the individualism rather than “collectivism” of its nature or at least showing ourselves unable to, when we actually begin thinking with such precision, actually pin point the “collective” in reality when some voluntaryist challenges: “Show me the collective, where is it?”.

Granted, both “plural” and “singular” are mental abstractions, but it is pretty obvious that we cannot refer to anything in reality without going through the abstraction of a singular, even when we wish to refer to a “collective”. In other words, the only way to directly describe things in reality is through singular, not plural.

So it would appear that both our minds and the reality itself is naturally wired as individualistic rather than collectivist. There are merely multiple levels, one being fundamental to another which is fundamental to a yet another and so on possibly indefinitely, but an individual thing always comes first and it’s “collective”, as we would mentally describe it, only ends up creating another individual thing.

Collectivist is murky thinking. There is no precision in an argument which has collectives as its variables.