Do you support the use of violence against me for simply disagreeing with you?

Obviously, any sane person would say no. There would be no point in even having a conversation with a person that supports the use of violence against you for simply disagreeing. That’s insane.

Yet, if you examine the political beliefs of most people, perhaps including yourself, those beliefs actually do support the use of violence against other people for simply disagreeing.

For instance, say that you think the government should educate kids with a public education system. And say that I disagree (which I actually do). I think private education systems would do a better job, be much more innovative, make the kids smarter, happier, and do it much cheaper. I want a completely voluntary education system. But you say no bla bla bla government needs to do it and I need to pay my taxes like a good American to sustain the system. If I try to disagree by not paying my taxes to support public schools then government goons will start harassing me for my money until they finally throw me in jail. I must agree by paying up, or violence is the result. It’s not like I ever signed a contract to support public education. All it is is social bullying. It’s a completely insane and immoral system. It supports the use of violence against people for simply disagreeing.

You’ll notice then that to win any political argument your position has to be one of uncompromising personal liberty. Personal liberty starts with the right to private property, namely your own physical body. Without an understanding of the primacy of private property, violence in this world is inevitable because then human interaction is no longer voluntary; people are permitted to use force against others. If the concept of government is justifiable at all, it is to protect private property…personal liberty. But such government would be microscopic, because social order that starts with an uncompromising commitment to personal liberty already protects private property. And government is always problematic no matter how small it starts out because it creates a Russian nesting doll issue whereby you need a government to keep the government in check and another government to keep that government in check and so on.

Any position you try to take to make this method of winning a political argument moot, must inevitably entail supporting some kind of violation of the right to private property, a violation of personal liberty, and thus the support of violence against non-aggressors.

The reason this method actually works is because it is the only logical and moral political stance. It basically points out the immorality of the whole concept of government. It’s simple stuff. And if you don’t agree with me about all this, that’s fine, but I hope you know then that you are insane.

This is a cool free audiobook (and standard book) available at Mises.org.