Operation Going About: Why Ban Coercion?

Rights cannot be protected when the mechanism for defining the legal use of force in a retaliatory capacity is instead being used to grant permission to use initiatory force. 

The first step is to decline to implement even a tiny tax to pay for defense.  Yes defense is important but only when paid for voluntarily. A new country needs to know that whenever it happens, the first free country to ban coercion and declare itself as such will attract enemies and have to have defenses and to have prepared for the existence of enemies. Coercion cannot achieve a proper defense. Free individuals pay for defense because they value their freedom and have their freedom. The price of freedom cannot be enslavement. So there is no need to implement a tax for defense.

Caring for the sick, educating the young, building homes and roads and arenas all are the work of individuals working together voluntarily, with no-one being coerced.

The proper services of government are well paid for in a modern country via the superior court system of contract registration so that contractual rights and responsibilities may be recorded and insured against default, fraud and non-performance and the like. In this way, as more and more individuals and companies care about securing themselves, so they will make their own safety nets which will become real honest and working safety nets that meet individuals' needs by their own judgment and if they don't it's those individuals' responsibility to fix it for themselves. The system has to be geared towards the needs of the productive, not the unproductive. The more it is so geared, the more incentive there is to become productive.

Such nets are more insulated against extreme adverse reactions to changes in population. This is especially important when population numbers decline just as a larger number is reaching old age and the young generations are fewer in number. Doing more with less is only doable when individuals are free to make their individual choices and live their own lives. Even done voluntarily, trying to get one person to make decisions for a large number of people is bound to miss the mark for some people. But this system is more likely to miss the Next Big Thing, which would have benefited all our lives, had the decision been left to the individuals, who would work with and perfect a given process or product before even suggesting that others may find it helpful.  

When individuals approach each and every activity as one that requires one know one's own mind and be willing to hear the ideas from the minds of others always on the understanding that no one has the right to initiate force. This law makes it possible to hear someone's idea but not be obligated to agree, or worth with that person. Being able to say "no" is as important as being able to say 'yes.' Each comes with responsibilities. Having to deal with disappointment and rejection is something we all have to deal with at some point; being able to carry on and keep searching for people with whom we can work, and then working together when we do is going to feel pretty-difficult and time-consuming at first. But lots of decisions are the kind one makes once or twice and then really doesn't bother much about. Securing the necessities of life like roads, hospitals, schools, home, work, are elements that would bring opportunities for employment, for saving money, for learning a new skill or finding an investment opportunity.

But most countries have never experienced that joy on any level. They gave in to the idea that one could be mostly free from coercion as long as they agreed to accept some coercion. They were told the bad effects would be counteracted by having elected representation present at the meeting where the decisions are made as to how the coerced funds shall be spent. 

But there is no substitute for direct control over the expenditure. It is different to have a bunch of money voluntarily contributed to a cause, the control of which a guy is elected to have, versus the government being given the right to confiscate wealth from each citizen coercively. There is no fair way to initiate force - it is itself a criminal act and must be outlawed in its entirety. 

People thought they were having the best of both worlds. But a little bit of coercion is a poison that spreads and multiplies. That little bit causes economic misinformation to be transmitted, which creates problems not immediately traceable to their source. So the call for more coercion is sent out and because the first wave was not repelled, one has ceded the high ground for refusing to accept the next bit of coercion. 

It is an either/or kind of thing. All coercion has to be abolished, or coercion is all you will have. The alleged problem of free riders is blown way out of proportion to its actual incidence and effect. Leaving individuals free to care about their own lives and spend their earnings and wealth on their own interests must be relied upon to produce the resources by voluntary means needed to defend the country. And I think it will do so successfully.

A new country has to be founded to show world how banning coercion secures, protects and defends individuals rights. It is only coercion that needs to be banned in order to secure those rights. The knowledge that one is freed from coercion and persecution has already proven to be highly successful at producing wealth and creativity.

As has been proven century after century, surely by now to everyone's satisfaction, every big empire has gone broken trying to coerce results. The subsequent massive intrusion by government into every facet of life devours surpluses, inhibits creativity, kills productivity and poisons cities. It becomes impossible to live with strangers. 

It is thought that individuals all need to agree on moral issues and political infrastructure in a country. But I think all it takes is recognizing that only by banning coercion can we all both get along and handle non-agreement.

When coercion is eliminated from the array of possible choices, an individual has to come up with options palatable to himself and others with whom he proposes to work. This is true of all human interaction, whether the relationship is employer/employee, shopkeeper/customer, buyer/seller and friendships and romantic attachments.

Trade is the act of offering and accepting or rejecting goods, services and companionship. Offering values to others is how we engage in interactions and acquire the necessities and luxuries of life. There is no substitute for each individual in his own skin, making choices and decisions.

Successful cohabitation in a given geographical zone was more likely discovered after two people, or two tribes, instead of resorting to blows,  simply went their separate ways when they could not reach agreement. Perhaps when next they met, each had thought over the other's proposition earlier rejected, and come to see some value in it, and either are now interested to try it, or are at least interested to hear about the progress made. They had discovered the truth about the exchange of ideas - that one could not force agreement, one had to rely on reason and logic to persuade the other to see one's point of view and that if agreement were not forthcoming, to force the issue would be counter-productive.

They discovered the key to dealing with disagreements: was by banning coercion. Agreeing with others is easy; it was the problem of disagreements that needed to be solved.

Banning coercion solved the problem elegantly. It encouraged civility among strangers, making trade possible faster, without the lengthy "getting to know you" meetings.

Nowadays, coercion on the wider governmental level has in every country been accepted as inevitable, necessary and even virtuous! So it is perpetuated and all the legalized forms of coercion thrive. Meanwhile, the government is broke, unable to properly fund its legitimate functions and the more it imposes taxes, it seems the poorer it becomes.

Achieving successful cohabitation relies on successful human interaction. Successful human interaction relies on banning coercion, in order to deal rationally with disagreements between and among individuals. If you cannot agree then you must go your separate ways.

Only banning coercion will achieve the environment in which individuals thrive whether they are nomadic or static. Freedom is freedom from the initiation of force, and it achieves its purpose when men live by it in all their waking moments. Live it on your individual scale and it'll be achieved on a political  scale.

Government is trying to run everything. But a handful of viewpoints will never be a substitute for all of our viewpoints. Each individual has to live his or her own life.