Disasters and the Pax Romana Problem

Whenever disasters impact an area in modern times, governments play a large role in the cleanup and recovery efforts. People file claims with the state to recover their losses while simultaneously inflicting those losses upon taxpayers elsewhere in the nation. Building codes are enhanced, and because resources spent on one expense cannot be spent on another, the result is less resources available for communication, medical care, and transportation to warn people of disasters, get them away from danger, and treat any injuries or diseases that result. The usual pork barrel spending and high-profile boondoggles will rear their ugly heads among the disaster relief spending.

But there is an even more insidious problem at work here, which we may term the Pax Romana Problem. Students of history will be familiar with the time of relative peace and stability from the time of Augustus (r. 27 BCE-14 CE) until the time of Commodus (r. 177-192 CE). During this time, the economy, the arts, and agriculture flourished because the tribal battles that predated Roman conquests as well as the rebellions and riots that predated the Pax Romana were largely suppressed. But there was a dark side to this, particularly in parts of the empire which were much closer to the border than to Rome. With Roman forces in charge of law, order, and security, many peoples suffered losses in the ability to provide these services themselves. After all, societal organs tend to decay from disuse just as individual people do. When the Pax Romana ended, these peoples were without the stabilizing forces which they had come to rely upon and were out of practice in providing these services for themselves. The end result was that several of these peoples were raided and conquered by various barbarians and empires.

At first glance, this may not appear to have much to do with disaster relief. But there is a similarity between what happens when governments step in during disasters and what happens when a large empire takes over security for formerly independent smaller tribes. Before there was massive government intervention to help disaster victims, people had more of an incentive to plan ahead and be ready for potential disasters because they knew that if something were to happen, they would have to rely upon themselves and the people in their communities to survive and recover. Without the potential for government agents to step in, people were less likely to view disaster relief as someone else’s problem and thus more likely to donate to relief efforts. When one relies upon people one knows for support during hard times, defrauding people is disincentivized due to both the loss of reputation in the community as well as the potential for reprisals. Looting is also less of a problem when security is handled directly by private property owners without involving the state because they and their hired help are both more competent at and more concerned with solving local crime problems than distant bureaucrats and their minions. Of course, these conditions meant a stronger social fabric and less dependence on the state, so governments found it all too tempting to interfere.

Before there was significant government involvement in the insurance industry, insurers would either refuse to insure or charge exorbitant rates to cover properties which were at a continually high risk for being destroyed by floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other such periodic catastrophes. This was an important market signal that certain areas are not good places for humans to build permanent residences. Of course, some people ignored those signals and suffered the consequences of their stupidity, but this has better outcomes for everyone else than rewarding such stupidity with government handouts which incentivize people to stay in places where they are likely to suffer disasters.

Now that governments play an active role in disaster relief, all of the problems that one might reasonably expect are present. When politicians have a choice between doing what is best for the people and doing what helps their public image, they will almost invariably choose the latter. Because the state has a coercive monopoly, it cannot be fired or have its funding suspended by normal means, regardless of how terrible its performance is or how much it interferes with private efforts which are trying to help people. To the contrary, failure means that statists can claim that insufficient funding is the reason for failure. There is also the matter of vote-buying, in that the people have an incentive to elect politicians who will deliver them the most funds from the government treasury. Disaster relief is not as reliable a payout method as welfare programs, but it is still a means of legal plunder available to those who live in disaster-prone areas.

We can also see the typical one-size-fits-all policies rather than the more targeted solutions that a private effort would attempt. For example, following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a program to give away $2000 to every household that claimed to be affected by Katrina, regardless of size or need. Of course, this was subject to much waste, fraud, and abuse. Unlike private organizations who must rely upon voluntary donations, the state has no incentive to actually figure out how much help each household needs, so it overpays some and underpays others.

With government infrastructure management, people are encouraged to live in places which are at higher risk for disasters than would otherwise be economical to inhabit. To use the example of Katrina again, levees held back water from areas which have an elevation below sea level. Investigations into their failure showed cost-cutting during construction as well as poor maintenance. While there is no guarantee that a privately built and maintained system would have been successful, that which may or may not work is better than that which is known to fail. Then again, leaving infrastructure up to the private market could have meant that low-lying areas would have always been underwater and thus uninhabited, meaning that structures and lives would not have been at risk there because they would have been absent in the first place.

Government flood insurance programs also encourage people to take risks which would not make economic sense in a free market. What is incorrectly perceived as a market failure is actually a market success; the process of voluntary exchange and decentralized calculation produces the result that flood plains are inferior places to build a house or business. Rather than people rebuilding communities in unstable locations for the umpteenth time, a free market in flood insurance would cause low-lying areas to be abandoned and returned to a state of nature, as is proper. Perhaps in time, such places which are near coastlines and below sea level could fill in with sediment and become livable lands which do not require levees to keep water out of them.

Finally, government police and National Guard forces have largely displaced private security measures to prevent looting during disasters. Worse than that, they have actively engaged in attacks upon disaster victims who were trying to provide such defense for themselves, causing the very problem they should be trying to solve.

Fortunately, this perverse state of affairs will not last forever. Someday, the United States government will decline and fall, just like Rome and so many other empires throughout history. Just like the outer peoples of the Roman Empire after the Pax Romana ended, the American people will be left to fend for themselves in the absence of the federal government. The degree of government involvement in their lives will leave them weakened in the face of disasters which will not cease to afflict them when the state does. But a return to proper incentive structures will mean that in the long run, behaviors will be positively modified, the attitudes of the people will change to match those behaviors, and the community bonds which support a truly healthy society can be rebuilt.

Seven observations on the Rio Olympics

On August 3-21, 2016, the 2016 Summer Olympics were held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. More than 11,000 athletes from 207 National Olympic Committees took part in 28 different sports across 38 different venues. Seven observations on these events follow.

1. Governments do not care about poor people. In order to build the Olympic venues, government officials in Rio displaced thousands of poor and homeless people, including many children. When affordable housing is demolished, it raises the price of other housing due to smaller supply and a new surge of demand. Food and transportation costs have also risen. The end result is that people are priced out of their own communities by state action. While government officials have claimed that the Olympic construction was done to improve the city, the ends cannot justify the means of eminent domain and forced relocation. Additionally, much of the construction does not address the most pressing concerns of Rio’s citizens, such as connecting more neighborhoods to the sewer system.

Another problem that has increased due to the Olympics is the amount of human rights violations against Brazil’s street children, many of whom are detained arbitrarily and put into an already overcrowded prison system. The government in Rio chose not to try to help the children who eke out a homeless existence on the streets while suffering from drug addiction, but rather to merely sweep them away from the eyes of international tourists. All of this is par for the course for governments. To quote Stefan Molyneux, “The government does not care about the poor as anything other than hostages to shame and capture the guilt of the innocent and force them to hand over additional money, rights, and children to the government.”

2. The Games serve to glorify the state at the expense of the individual. While the competitions are won and lost by individuals or teams thereof, these are almost always tied to a nation-state. It is always said that athletes win medals for their countries, and the award ceremonies always feature the national anthem of the nation that sent the gold medalist athlete, along with the flags of the top three finishers in the event. This amounts not to a celebration of individual achievements, but a garish display of jingoistic nationalism. The host nation-state forces its taxpayers to fund a spectacle in which a sort of cold war is conducted by having each nation-state’s champions vie for supremacy. It would be far better to privatize the entire process so that nation-states are deprived of a propaganda tool.

3. Some activities simply cannot be made safe. Every Olympics features its share of athletes suffering injuries (10-12 percent), and the 2016 Summer Olympics were no exception. Despite all of the precautions taken, athletes who push themselves to the top level of competition in strenuous activities sometimes get injured, especially when going for a medal means exceeding what one has done in training. The only way to prevent all of the injuries would be to eliminate all of the activities, so it is better to leave the athletes to take their own risks, reap their own rewards, and suffer their own consequences.

4. It is important to pace oneself in any task. This is a lesson which is frequently displayed across various athletic events, but it bears repeating. Those who put too much effort into the beginning of a long and/or arduous task will have difficulty in finishing. Many runners exhaust themselves in leading the pack of competitors for most of a race only to lose at the end because a less tired runner who managed to hang back just behind the leader is able to muster a sprint for the finish line to overtake the pace-setter up until that point. This happened in several medium distance races in Rio.

Another example of this phenomenon occurred in men’s weightlifting for the superheavy weight class. Behdad Salimi, the gold medalist from the 2012 Summer Olympics, set a new world record in the snatch only to fail all three of his attempts at the clean and jerk, meaning that he failed to post a total and won no medal.

5. Performance-enhancing drugs will always be one step ahead of detection methods. This is unavoidable, as there is no real incentive to test for a drug before it is known to be manufactured and used. While many users get caught, and punishments are handed out (such as the banning of many Russian athletes from the 2016 Games), many more do not. There are many incentives which create this problem. As Dr. Cayce Onks, a family and sports medicine specialist at Penn State Hershey Medical Group, explains, “Anyone who gets a gold medal has the benefit of TV contracts, announcer gigs, commercials and all the money that comes with it. It’s not just the prestige and satisfaction of competing at that level and winning. Tenths of seconds can mean the difference between a medal and no medal, so whatever they can do to get that extra tenth, they want to try.” As for other incentives…

6. An interesting spectacle is more important to many people than honest competition. While the Olympics are somewhat hit-or-miss in terms of being a financial boost for the places that host them, they are always a cash cow for the television networks that air footage of them. Ratings go up for performances that push the limits of human capability, as well as for athletes who have a reputation for delivering such performances. It was Usain Bolt in the 2016 Summer Olympics, but it is always someone. The advertisers, the International Olympic Committee, the doping testing agencies, and everyone else involved are fully aware of the incentives here, and it would be exceedingly foolish to believe that they never respond to the incentive to let some athletes break doping rules.

7. Human biodiversity clearly exists. Finally, the Summer Olympics should be a quadrennially sounding death knell for the idea of blank-slate egalitarianism. That certain events are almost always won by people with ancestry in particular population groups cannot be explained solely by the sum of culture, training, government funding of sports, and other nurturing elements. Humans will adapt to their environment like any other organism, and those adaptations can give members of a particular population group an advantage in a particular activity. While these adaptations can be noticed in people who move to another place and live as the locals do, the extent of the adaptations which are present in a population group that has inhabited a place for many generations cannot be replicated in one human lifetime. These differences are not nearly large enough at present to categorize humans into different species or subspecies, but they were in the past and very well could be again in the future. While this will not affect the average person’s daily life, it will determine who has the extra performance capacity needed to win Olympic gold when other factors, such as diet, training regimen, and rest, are nearly equal.

Black Lives Matter Versus Libertarian Revolution

Since the beginning of the Black Lives Matter movement, libertarians have had strong differences concerning how to engage with it. On one hand, libertarians would agree that many laws whose enforcement results in deaths of black people at the hands of government agents should be eliminated, such as those forbidding drug possession. On the other hand, many people who protest under the BLM banner engage in activities which are at odds with libertarian philosophy, such as blocking roads, disrupting businesses, and rioting.

As time marches on, as tends to happen in most activist organizations with street presence, the more radical elements within the BLM movement are gaining more attention. The sister of a man who was killed by police on August 13 urged protesters,

“Don’t bring that violence here. Burning down shit ain’t going to help nothing. Y’all burning down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down.”

At the beginning of the riots in Milwaukee, a rioter could be heard yelling to police officers,

“We do not want justice or peace anymore. We done with that shit. We want blood. We want blood. We want the same shit y’all want. Eye for an eye. No more peace. Fuck all that. Ain’t no more peace. Ain’t no more peace. We done. We cannot co-habitate with white people, one of us have to go, black or white. All y’all have to go!”

And at a protest in Portland, Ore. on July 12, BLM leaders told protesters concerning police officers,

“Whatever you do, you pull your pistol out and fucking bust them… Trust me when you see me move, I’m moving in violence. We need action. I don’t give a fuck if you knock them over, whether you run up on them, whatever you do, you better fucking take action.”

The urgings of some misguided libertarians notwithstanding, these sentiments should make it clear that there is not an alliance to be made between BLM radicals and libertarians. Although there are segments of the libertarian community who understand that violent revolution is necessary to abolish the state, and both would physically remove government police officers from their communities, this impulse for libertarians is radically different from what is illustrated above. The libertarian revolution proceeds from the realization that a libertarian social order is superior to that of either a democratic or authoritarian state, and that such a state stands in the way and cannot be expelled from a territory or completely eliminated by peaceful means. Anti-police violence advocated by BLM leaders proceeds from the realization that police are an obstacle to degenerate and criminal behavior which they would like to see removed, and that this will not happen by peaceful means.

While the libertarian revolutionary seeks to end a system which violently victimizes the innocent, the BLM radical seeks to impose such a system upon white people. While the libertarian revolutionary seeks to protect individual rights and private property, the BLM radical seeks to take private property from its rightful owners in order to fund government programs and give reparations to people who were never personally wronged. While the libertarian revolutionary seeks to free minds and markets, the BLM radical seeks to perpetuate government indoctrination and communize resources. While the libertarian revolutionary seeks to replace government monopoly police which are coercively funded with private competing security forces which are voluntarily funded, the BLM radical seeks to abolish police with no clear alternative in mind. It should be clear to all but the most cucked and autistic libertarians that these two groups cannot work together toward a common goal because they are aimed at cross purposes.

That being said, it is possible that this could change. BLM radicals could think things over and come to the realization that the real enemy is not society, white people, racism, capitalism, patriarchy, privatization, or any other false target that various leaders within their movement have pursued thus far. They could figure out that burning down their own communities (or other communities) grants the police that they claim to oppose the appearance of legitimacy and necessity that they need to continue and escalate the activities for which they claim to oppose them. They could figure out that making this about black versus white rather than blue versus you creates a sense among white people that they should enter this conflict on the side of the state against the black community rather than on the side of the black community against the state. They could figure out that calling for huge government programs and expanded government control of the economy will require far more of the enforcement agents that they claim to oppose while further ruining their communities by creating perverse incentives. They could figure out that the root problem is aggression by government agents, and that the only solution to this problem is self-defense against government without deliberately targeting anyone else.

But unless and until that happens, BLM is an enemy of libertarianism which happens to be in conflict with another enemy of libertarianism, namely agents of the state. It is important to recognize that the enemy of one’s enemy is not necessarily one’s friend, or even an ally of convenience. Though the United States government is the most powerful and dangerous criminal organization in human history, its power could fall into worse hands and be used for worse purposes. Its abolition by people with the wrong ideas could create the need for a counter-revolution against them in order to establish a better social order rather than a worse one (or the complete lack of one). As for how libertarians should deal with BLM as it is now, when government agents and common criminals fight, it is generally best to pull for no one and hope for heavy casualties on both sides.

The Ethics Of Political Assassinations

At a campaign rally on August 9, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was discussing the possibility of Hillary Clinton appointing justices to the Supreme Court who could weaken gun rights, as well as what might be done about it. He said,

“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we’re tied.”

Predictably, every element of the establishment went apoplectic. Though the Trump campaign tried to clarify that he was speaking of energizing voters to stop Clinton at the polls, the Secret Service spoke with the Trump campaign, Clinton used the remarks for political hay, other Republicans denounced the remarks, and the lapdog media devoted entire blocks of programming to attacking Trump, accusing him of calling for Clinton’s assassination. How dare anyone speak of self-defense against a tyrannical government, they effectively said? How dare anyone inform the populace, even accidentally, of the true purpose of the Second Amendment? How dare anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky even think of political violence? On and on they went, decrying such a move as yet another sign of Trump being too dangerous a choice for the Presidency.

But should Trump be backpedaling? Was he really wrong to make such a suggestion, or is there a case to be made for political assassination? Let us examine both the moral and practical cases for political assassinations at an abstract and philosophical level, that we may apply them not to one politician, but to all.

The Moral Case

The word ‘assassinate’ is defined as “to kill (someone, such as a famous or important person) usually for political reasons.” Thus, it is just a fancy term for killing a particular kind of person for a particular reason. But a person’s fame or importance in the opinion of other people is of no concern with regard to objective moral standards. As such, we need only consider when it is justifiable to kill any person, regardless of their standing or affiliation. Fortunately, libertarian philosophy makes this simple. The non-aggression principle says that initiating the use of force is never acceptable, but using force defensively to stop an initiator of force is always acceptable. The question of how much defensive force may be used is also easy to answer. If a defender may not use any amount of force necessary to subdue an aggressor, then all an aggressor need do to get away with aggressive behavior is to use force in such a way that the defender cannot use enough force to subdue the aggressor. To believe in limitations on defensive force is to believe that might makes right, which is the antithesis of both philosophy and morality. Thus, unlimited force is justified in order to defend against an aggressor.

The state is defined as a group of people who exercise a monopoly on initiating the use of force within a geographical area. Some people are directly involved in this; these are the police, military, and other enforcement agents of the state. Other people are indirectly involved; these are the politicians, bureaucrats, and regulators. The enforcement class are clearly legitimate targets for defensive force, as they are direct aggressors. Their job is to initiate the use of force on behalf of the latter group, escalating the use of force as far as they must in order to gain compliance. But the political class are also involved in aggression, as they give the enforcers the orders that they carry out. To say that they may not be forcefully defended against equivalent to saying that one may kill aggressors in self-defense but must hold harmless any people who are hiring and directing the aggressors. This is an absurd result because it places the onus upon the would-be victim to spend one’s life either evading a practically endless series of aggressors or giving into their demands rather than allowing the would-be victim to end the threat. Because the political class gives commands to the enforcement class and will hire more members to join the enforcement class should some be killed by the civilian population, members of the political class are as legitimate a target as members of the enforcement class. Therefore, political assassinations are morally justifiable.

Practical Concerns

Although political assassinations are morally justifiable, they tend to be tactically unwise. Whenever a politician is assassinated, another one steps into the office to take his or her place. Abolition of a political office solely by the means of eliminating its current occupant is impossible by design. Whereas people have been assassinating politicians for almost as long as there have been politicians, those who wield state power have figured out the necessity of having a line of succession for positions which are essential for the functioning of the state apparatus in order to ensure continuity of said apparatus. In many cases, there is even a mechanism to keep power within the same political faction should a politician have to replace an assassinated politician. The state is a hydra; cut off one head and more grow back in its place. If the state is to be abolished by force (and it must be), its body must be destroyed, which is to say the enforcement class rather than the political class. After all, the political class cannot rule if no one is willing to enforce their rule because the citizenry have made that occupation too hazardous.

Another disadvantage is that assassinations are frequently used by the ruling class as a pretext to disarm the citizenry and seize more power for themselves. Not only does it follow the dictum of never allowing a crisis to go to waste, but it allows state propagandists to fear-monger and portray an environment of random predation that can strike even the rulers, necessitating an expansion of state power and curtailment of civil liberties because according to them, it is the only possible provider of security. The lapdog media would, of course, do its part to paint those who would use violence in self-defense against government as deranged lunatics and those in government as the heroes who will protect everyone from this “danger.” Lone assassins lack the means to shut enough of their lying mouths, and there are still few people in the alternative media who are willing to defend political assassinations, so the establishment narrative would become dominant. The end result is that the state is empowered by small, isolated attacks upon its figureheads. Only a more robust resistance against the enforcement class rather than the political class could overcome these challenges.

That being said, political assassinations can serve as a form of vigilante justice. Everyone knows that government will not hold government accountable, as the practical purpose of the state is to do that which would be criminal for anyone else and use the state’s monopoly on criminal justice to escape punishment. Politicians and their minions frequently victimize people, then hide behind the legal shield of sovereign immunity should people try to use the courts to seek justice. When people are wronged and they can find no justice through the system for dispute resolution because the system will not turn on itself, vigilante justice is better than no justice at all.

Finally, political assassinations can have value to an anti-state movement as propaganda of the deed. In any revolution, someone must make the first move, and there are usually many people who would be willing to revolt but are unwilling to make that first move. One assassin willing to eliminate a high-profile target and sacrifice one’s liberty (and possibly life as well) by doing so can be both the catalyst and the martyr for a revolutionary movement that topples an oppressive regime.


The probability that political assassinations will bring liberty by themselves is slim, but there is no objective moral prohibition against utilizing such tactics. Whether to resort to such measures is a subjective value judgment that each individual or group must make. As always, an essential feature of liberty is to take one’s own risks, reap one’s own rewards, and suffer one’s own consequences. What is certain is that, in the famous words of Otto von Bismarck, “It is not by speeches and majority resolutions that the great questions of the day are decided—but by iron and blood.”

A Libertarian Social Order In The Garden

Since the dawn of civilization, humans have engaged in agriculture. For millennia, gardens have been a source of nourishment, recreation, and social status. As such, many metaphors have been developed which refer to agricultural concepts to make a point about another subject. Examples can be found in both religious and secular texts from every culture. Therefore, it is only fitting that such a metaphor be made for libertarian philosophy in practice. Let us see how a garden can serve as a metaphor for a libertarian social order, as well as what insights this metaphor can provide for the creation and maintenance of such an order.

The Garden Kingdom

A garden is created and maintained by a gardener. The gardener rules the garden as an absolute monarch rules his kingdom, as there is no power within its bounds to challenge the gardener’s authority. The legitimacy of his rule is established like that of any private property owner; he mixes his labor with unowned natural resources to gain ownership of the improvements made. Ownership of the improvements is impossible without ownership of the things improved, so the gardener’s labor entitles him to the land of the garden and everything growing in it. He uses his sole dominion as he sees fit, determining which crops to plant where, which plants may remain where they are, which must be relocated, and which must be removed. He chooses which insects or other animals to allow to remain, which to import, and which to remove. All plants (and other lifeforms) that remain within the garden do so at the pleasure of the gardener, and they serve his needs and wants in exchange for his merciful provision and protection.

A kingdom is not worth much without its productive citizenry, upon whose production the king relies for sustenance. For the gardener, this role is fulfilled by fruit and vegetable plants, as well as pollinating insects. The gardener sows their seeds in the correct season and provides them with good soil so that they may be successful. This is necessary because unlike humans, the crops cannot optimally manage their own affairs and stand in need of a central planner. If the rain should be insufficient, the gardener irrigates the crops. If the plants need fertilizer, the gardener gives them some. If the plants are attacked, the gardener defends them. If the plants produce too much foliage and not enough crops, the gardener prunes them. If the plants drop seeds in an improper place, the gardener cleans up after them. If the plants cross-pollinate against the gardener’s wishes, he separates them further. In time, the plants will feed the gardener in exchange for his good stewardship of them.

Unproductive Citizens, Immigrants, and Threats

But sometimes, the citizenry are not productive. In some cases, this is because their particular environments are not conducive to their well-being. Some plants fare poorly in one part of the garden but would do well in another. But unlike human citizens in a kingdom, the plants cannot move themselves; the gardener must dig them out and move them. And as the gardener has legitimate powers of eminent domain as well as subjects without any human rights, there is nothing wrong with moving them. Other plants may not produce in the garden’s climate, no matter their location within it. If this happens, the gardener may choose not to replant them and instead buy seeds for new crops, just as a king might allow in immigrant workers to perform necessary tasks which no current citizens can perform. Should the new crops prove successful, the gardener may naturalize these new crops as permanent residents of the garden. If not, then the gardener will keep looking for a different crop to fill the void.

In other cases, the citizenry are not productive because they are under attack. Just as in human life, there are many threats to the safety of a fruit or vegetable plant. A kingdom will contain a criminal element which preys upon the productive citizenry. If a king has a duty, it is to safeguard the citizens from attack. The domestic criminals and parasites of the garden consist of weeds and some animals. Weeds deprive the crops of the nutrients that they need in order to thrive. Left unchecked, they can crowd out the crops, depriving them of sunlight. Some will even wrap around crop plants and strangle them. Rodents and other wild animals will eat the crops and sometimes even the entire crop plants, depriving the gardener of his just rewards.

A kingdom must also be guarded from external foes, as foreign invaders and terrorists can be just as devastating as the domestic criminal element should they be allowed to immigrate into the garden. Harmful insects play this part in the garden. They typically live somewhere outside the garden, but enter to prey upon the crops. They damage fruits and vegetables, destroy leaves, and even chew through stems to destroy entire plants. Left unchecked, they can reduce a gardener’s harvest to zero and leave behind eggs which will hatch new insects to do the same to a future year’s crop.

Defending The Realm

These aggressors are not amenable to any sort of reasoning. One does not ask a weed not to grow or a beetle not to eat, as it is against their inherent nature. The only way to deal with such a criminal element is through physical removal, and escalating to a full extermination is frequently necessary. Fortunately, the gardener has many tools at his disposal to deal with such problems, just as a king has guards, sheriffs, and armies. Weeds may be pulled, hoed, tilled, or sprayed with herbicides. Rodents can be handled with traps or by their natural predators, such as cats and snakes. Larger animals that attack the crops, such as deer, can be shot to feed the gardener as well as eliminate a threat to the garden. Insects can be thwarted by natural predators, traps, or a wide variety of insecticides.

Where are such plants and animals to go, if they may not stay in the garden? It is not the gardener’s concern. They are threats to his property, the fruits of his labor, and perhaps even his livelihood and survival. He is justified in using any means necessary to eliminate the threat and defend his property.

In the worst cases, insects may damage a plant beyond repair while marking it with chemicals that signal more insects to come. When this happens, the gardener must make a sacrifice for the greater good and remove that plant from the garden. Allowing that plant to remain and bring pestilence to the healthy plants of the garden will only cause further damage.

Collateral Damage

Like any tools, those that the gardener uses to defend the garden can be used in such a way that causes collateral damage. An errant blow from a hoe can destroy a crop plant, as can a gust of wind that blows herbicide where it should not go. Insecticides can kill bees as well as harmful insects. Fortunately, such mishaps only negatively affect the gardener’s harvest, and do little other noticeable damage. Although crop lives and bee lives matter to a competent gardener, no gardener has to worry about being retaliated against by the crops or bees in any meaningful way should he accidentally slaughter a few. This is partly because of the nature of non-sentient lifeforms, and partly because a gardener has none of the concerns about popular support that a democratic ruler has.


A garden is not a perfect metaphor for a libertarian social order, as none of the residents of the garden are sentient beings on par with the gardener. But this metaphor does illustrate the creation and maintenance of a libertarian social order according to individual preferences in a simplistic case of black and white morality. This example can be expanded and filled in with nuances as needed to extend it to tenants in a covenant community, which are the building blocks of a flourishing libertarian society.

The Case For Bringing Religion Into Politics

In a July 23 interview with Scott Pelley of CBS, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was asked about internal Democratic National Committee emails which had been released recently. One of the email chains included a staffer’s suggestion that they ask questions about Sanders’ religion in an attempt to undermine him with religious voters. Clinton said in response, “I am adamantly opposed to anyone bringing religion into our political process. …That is just absolutely wrong and unacceptable.” But is it? Let us make the contrary case that the religious beliefs of a candidate should be part of the political process.

In the philosophical sense, a religion is a set of principles by which an adherent is supposed to live. As these principles are supposed to be the guiding precepts by which a believer makes decisions, it is especially important for people who are going to choose who will wield state power to know about the stated religious views of each candidate. Knowing this will allow voters and rival candidates to detect hypocrisy, anti-empiricism, and aggressive tendencies, none of which are desirable in a person who wields state power. It also allows people to consider whether any heretical views held by a candidate are for good or ill.


It is in the nature of politicians to say one thing and do another, or to espouse contrary principles when pandering to special interest groups or demographics which are at cross purposes. This is understandable, given the perverse incentive structures which are invariably present in democracies. But some engage in more blatant hypocrisy than others, doing so out of internal corruption rather than merely as a reaction to the prevailing political system. One indication of this is for a politician to claim a certain religious affiliation while acting in contradiction to the teachings of that religion. This can be a sign that the candidate will flip-flop on important issues, as those who lie to voters about one thing will be more likely to lie to them about something else.


Religions are frequently a source of anti-empirical beliefs, as most prominent religions were founded long ago when current scientific knowledge was unavailable. In the absence of reason and science, religion offered people what they thought were answers for phenomena which eluded their understanding. But accepting answers on faith is dangerous on two counts; they are probably incorrect, and it keeps people from searching for a proper understanding of the correct answer. When politicians take answers on faith rather than seeking rational, scientific explanations, the policy results can be disastrous. As such, it is important for a voter or rival candidate to know whether a candidate believes, for instance, that the Earth is flat and/or less than 10,000 years old just because an ancient text tells them so. This is an important indication that the candidate can be made to believe almost anything without asking for proper evidence.

It must be noted that not all anti-empiricism is undesirable. There is nothing wrong with opposing the entry of empiricism into fields of study in which it does not belong, such as mathematics or economics. And because empiricism requires rationalism in order to be used, it cannot overrule pure reason. As such, logic overrules experience and a priori truths are not subject to empirical study. But religions do not generally offer such strongly rational truth; instead, they rely upon divine revelation, which believers are taught to accept without evidence.

Aggressive Tendencies

When most prominent religions were founded, the world was a more violent place. Punishments for behaviors which aggressed against no person or property were commonplace, as was genocidal behavior toward neighboring people of different faiths as well as conquered peoples. But understanding of moral principles (if not their practice) has advanced since then, and most people have come to rightly condemn such behavior. When a candidate espouses a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of a religious text which calls for such behavior to be practiced throughout the society, it should give voters pause. This can require some study on the part of voters and other candidates to detect, as openly supporting wars on religious grounds is no longer fashionable in the West, but such tendencies can still be observed among religious neoconservatives.

Many religions also include content which is opposed to free markets, private property, and freedoms of thought and association. If such content influences a candidate to support such policies as high taxes on the wealthy, expansion of common spaces and/or welfare statism, restrictions on activities which do not aggress against any person or property, or policies which discriminate in favor one’s own religion and/or against other religions, voters and rival candidates should be aware of this.


Some people claim to be an adherent of a particular religion but have a different understanding from most people of the meaning of the teachings of that religion. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if such heretical beliefs lead a religious person away from hypocrisy, truth denial, or aggression. But those who define terms differently in one aspect of life will almost certainly do so in other aspects, and this is important information for voters and rival candidates to know. Whether this is for good or ill depends upon the particulars of each case, but it is an indicator that a candidate must be given more than a cursory examination in order to be properly understood.


For the above reasons, it is entirely appropriate to bring religion into the political process. It is a tool that voters can use to examine a candidate for flaws, as well as legitimate grounds for one candidate to attack another for character traits unbecoming of a person who would wield state power.