EDITORIAL
Dear Statists: I don’t Care About You
By Joe Jarvis - April 02, 2017

Dear Statists,

I don’t care about you, and would really appreciate it if you would stop “caring” about me.

Now, you might be thinking, “Of course you don’t care about me, you’re a libertarian!” But that is not what I mean. Actually, I do tend to care about other people; I am empathetic of others and therefore advocate free markets, because the closer the globe comes to a free market, the more people are lifted out of poverty.

But when I say I don’t care about you, what I mean is, I don’t care to force my views on you. I don’t care about you in the sense that the way you live your life doesn’t bother me as long as it doesn’t affect me. I don’t care to try to save you from yourself, and I don’t care to try to force conformity to my ideas of how a life should be lived.

If it seems like I do care, it is only because we currently live in a society where 51% of the population decides which views will be forced on everyone.

So I want you to stop forcing me to do things I don’t want to do, but I don’t need to convince you to join me; I don’t care what you do. You don’t have to change your ways, except by letting me change mine.

I just want you to stop forcing me to live the way you prescribe. My views allow individuals to decide their own solutions to their own problems, so if your solution is to sell yourself into slavery, so be it. But don’t put me on the auction block as well!

If you allowed me to live the way I want, it would not affect you negatively in the least! In fact, you probably wouldn’t even notice. I don’t need all of society to change, I just need to be freed from your societal chains.

And no, I am not talking about America in particular, so I can’t just move to another country and live how I want to live. That would be like if you were forcing me to eat at Applebee’s, and I described in detail the unique and healthy dinner I would rather have, and you said, “if you don’t want to eat at Applebee’s, go to another restaurant!”

The point is I don’t want to eat at any restaurant! I just want to make my own dinner, with my own ingredients that I choose to grow or buy from whomever I wish. But I won’t force you to eat my dinner; you can stay at Applebee’s for all I care! And none of this hurts you, (unless of course, your goal is to force me to fund restaurants.)

Society will be civilized when you let me do my thing. And I won’t force you to do my thing either. I will be perfectly happy doing my own thing, and if you all still want a government for whatever reason, you can go ahead and do that. Just don’t force me into your club. Don’t initiate violence towards me for not wishing to be involved.

And if you think this is already an option for me, you are naive and misguided; I would be arrested for committing (victimless) crimes, breaking regulations (that protect me from myself), and not paying taxes.

You may think I should still be forced to pay taxes, because of the “benefits” I will still be getting from the government. But America doesn’t tax foreigners on vacation to pay for the roads, America is content with the money tourists will pour into the economy while here, in addition to the sales and other taxes they will pay during the visit. The same would happen if I went into your government’s territory.

But to force me to continue paying taxes, while not using government services, would not be allowing me to go my separate way; I would still be forced to fund your government, which would place an extra burden on my own self governance, as well as force me to convert labor into fiat dollars, which I would not otherwise do. To force a man to fund something which he does not want or use is to admit that you view him as a slave.

Any of those things would impose extra burdens on me, even if the government goods and services I pay for were forced on me. On the other hand, my opting-out of the system does not impose any extra burdens on the society I am leaving.

So please, do not join me if you do not wish, and think me crazy and my ideas ludicrous if you must. But in doing so, please do not force me to consort with you or fund your government, and please do not initiate violence against me for doing things which do not harm anyone.

I will be the first to admit that this agreement is null and void as soon as my activities cause harm, as would be the case with dumping chemicals in rivers, or burning toxic waste. But I think you will find my own desire for healthy living severely restricts the likelihood of that ever happening.

I promise not to care what you do, if you promise not to care what I do.

Sincerely,

Joe Jarvis

P.S. If you are a Californian statist, I fully support your state going it’s separate way! You shouldn’t be forced into the American club against your will, and should be left alone when you choose to exit. Live and let live.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL
  • Earn nest

    You know, Joe, Friday thee was a post titled “Republicans don’t give a s..t about people.” What it was about was how terribly much Democrats are concerned about themselves. Particularly their wealth and POWER. However unlike socialism freedom just can’t be forced on people.

    • notwithabang

      Of course that’s not real wealth and power though and you are correct about the impossibility of enforcing freedom – that would be oxymoronic. The real issue is that few acknowledge their enslavement.

      Once enlightened, the concept of liberty becomes a feared and predatory unknown – e.g. those remaining in Plato’s Cave. I believe the majority would elect to remain within the dark, dank grotto rather than embrace uncertainty – hence centuries of attempts at improving the conditions of our chains, drudgery, rules and fences.

  • Thomas Clawson

    Lots of luck with that thinking, even though I agree with you.

    • nck

      If you agree, see how you can become a part of the process and help it along. Being resigned to the idea that change cannot take place is depressing and that depression can be contagious.

    • “Lots of luck with that thinking, even though I agree with you.”

      This could have been said about slavery, Feudalism, dictatorships, and a hundred other coercions against humans.

      The imperative is to never support the coercion in any way possible (word or deed), and to promote alternatives at every opportunity. Like this opportunity.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      “Lots of luck with that thinking,…”

      This implies that statism in any form (socialism/communism, fascism) is an inescapable metaphysical absolute, like gravity, that one must acknowledge and learn to live with it.

      Aggression at any level can be successfully fought and defeated. The first step is to withdraw one’s consent to be its victim.

      For elaboration, please read “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Etienne de la Boetie.

  • Alan777

    Joe, I completely agree with you. There is a movement towards a convention of states to make constitutional amendments that would get us a least partway there. Limited federal and state governments would go a long way towards us getting back our liberty.
    Unfortunately, as you’re well aware, the new generation and a good part of the older generations of “statists” are those brainwashed into thinking that more government and regulations are the answer to their problems. Keep up the good fight!

  • ALPHAMEG

    Dream on Joe. Globally the ever presiding game is the absolute control of every living soul, by others, who have the power to control. The only option not to play their game, is personal suicide, sayonara.

  • davidnrobyn

    Re CA leaving: For some reason the same people who mocked Texans for considering leaving are thinking it’s a great idea for Californians. Go figure.

  • Barney Biggs

    Joe the only problem is that by going your own way and not paying taxes if you do not use the services means that those who do will pay higher taxes. This is what is called collective liability. Do I like it hell no but those are the factors Canadian and US societies are based on.
    I have no kids but have to pay school taxes, don’t swim but have to pay for recreation taxes, do not use public transit but have to pay for it anyway. The costs for those who do would be astronomical if I did not pay my taxes. We have been trying to get rid of Quebec for generations but while they threaten they will not go. Their taxes would sky rocket if they did and they know it. Darn it.

    • You are correct, they would cost more for the people that actually use them, as they should. Everyone has different things they use and don’t; why shouldnt everyone pay for what they use and not pay for what they don’t?

      • Barney Biggs

        While I agree fundamentally, if that concept is applied across the board it would price many things out of the reach of most people.
        Things like public transit, public schools, parks etc. I have never been on public transit, never had kids and never go near the parks but still have to pay for them.

        • Half of everyone’s lifetime earnings are confiscated by the State. I think we’d all be surprised what people could afford if that stopped.

          Besides, cheap bus fares is no excuse for a war machine and the subjugation of billions of individuals.

  • acudoc1949

    The nuanced virtue-shaming of the theoretical libertarians! I find libertarianism, in its purest anarchist form, idealistic and impractical. Given mankind’s nature there will always be a certain class of sociopathic/psychopathic plunderers who will contend for power interminably. (Look at Juarez, Mexico—-and yes, I am aware that the State’s utterly ill-conceived drug prohibition has given rise to the violence, but if it wasn’t over drugs it would be over some other power struggle because a certain percentage of society will always choose plunder over production, to use Paul Rosenberg’s excellent phrase.) The best that can be hoped for is a governance structure that is responsive and respectful of the rights of the individual to own property and live a non-violent life, but there will always be a governance structure because the energy expenditure in a society of warring states is too high. The question really becomes: how, in our present ‘republic’, has power slipped away from the people to such a great extent and come to reside in the hands of special interests? For me the answer to that question is the debasement of our money and the outright theft brought about by a debt-based monetary system founded on fractional-reserve banking principles and the utter insanity of conferring the unconstitutional privilege of creating currency by the signing of bogus promissory notes to the 0.1% shyster banking class! That mechanism of currency creation has infected all the professions with a profound level of corruption and financed with ease the militarism of the current federal state…

  • Doc

    How about joining hands with the statists? If it’s a Trump statist supporter, I’m sure he would like the idea that Trump could realize his agenda for his supporters. If it’s an Democrat statist supporter, I’m sure they would do quite a lot to not have Trump as thier president. If it’s a non-Trump republican, I’m sure they want it in yet another way. And so on.

    Nobody is really getting the government they want, and we keep on fighting each other, trying to impose our ideals on other, while the man behind the curtain is laughing at us.

    99.9% of us are on the same side.

    • Totally agree. That is why it is exciting to see places like California talking about secession.

  • Steven Hotho

    Actually, it does bother me when other people abuse animals, children and the elderly; not to mention destroying the very natural environment we live in. I can’t stop them and if the state can’t stop then, maybe God will stop them.

    • We agree, it is not okay to violate others’ rights, and that is where the line it. There is nothing wrong with advocating for someone who cannot get help when their rights are abused, and polluting an environment is certainly a violation of others rights.

      • Rand

        DB ” polluting an environment is certainly a violation of others rights” this is one of the many areas that get complicated quickly. If myself or dog or cow farts on my property but it is right next to yours some would complain, if I start my diesel work truck to warm up for ten minutes in -30 degree weather some would complain, if I burn wood in my off the grid fireplace some would complain, if I produce a product that creates C02 some would complain. The list is endless and the degree of ” pollution ” will vary widely. Similar logic can be applied to many of your ideas as presented, I think it is all a little more complex then you’d like, we are all connected in more ways than many realize. That said you make some great points.
        Rand

        • Thanks Rand, you are right that it is tough to decide where the line is. Pollution should have to be shown to have had an actual negative effect, but even still I understand the interpretation of negative effect is up for debate. It would come down to dispute resolution between a party of thinks someone violated their rights with the pollution. In some neighborhoods it might be smoke from a bonfire that is considered a violation, and in others burning trash would not. Anyway, the government as arbiter for these situations is generally a recipe for all involved to be abused.

          • Steven Hotho

            How’s this for a negative effect. The northern reaches of the Pacific Ocean now contain a swirling gyre of plastic bags and 6 pack containers that is slowly choking the life out of the living creatures in that stew. All of that so we don’t have to carry our own cloth bags to WalMart. How does that equate with a bonfire in the backyard?

      • Peter Harris

        “…and would really appreciate it if you would stop “caring” about me.”

        Don’t be so presumptuous.

        The more rational people in this world, didn’t care about you misanthropic troglodytes in the 1st place.

        “We agree, it is not okay to violate others’ rights…”

        Oh, except if you’re a young child in a primary school (That’s Elementary School to you Yanks), who gets shot to death, and are deprived of the simple act of life itself, because some limbic system driven cave dweller, wants their gun rights.

        But hey, you keep it up.

        Because with websites like this (robots good for humanity, really?), then it shows the rest of the world that the PWT are doing their best to destroy white Western culture.

        • HI Peter,

          Actually, I think that the chances of a child (or anyone) getting shot at a school (or anywhere) are far lower when it is widely known that some of the private citizens at that location carry firearms. This, actually, is why I suppose “gun rights” and I believe many other people feel that private citizens are generally reliable protectors of each other against “some limbic system driven cave dweller.”

          I know that being among people who have easy access to deadly force can be terrifying, but when you get to know them, you find that they are a very helpful bunch. In my experience, we are much safer with them around, and I try to be one of them whenever I can because I also take responsibility of defending those around me from any ” limbic system driven cave dweller” who might show up and start shooting people (or whatever they do).

          • Peter Harris

            “Actually, I think that the chances of a child (or anyone) getting shot at a school (or anywhere) are far lower when it is widely known that some of the private citizens at that location carry firearms.”

            Really?

            That’s just your own bias opinion of course.
            Where are the scientific studies, which support your claim?

            Of course, you are just proving my point about those who rely on their limbic system to evaluate the world.

            You completely misunderstood my point.

            The trouble with America, with this culture of a gun for every day of the week, is that it’s far easier for cranks and nutters to get hold of guns.

            The fact is, that there are incredibly lax and corrupt gun laws in the United States, which makes it even easier for those nutters to get guns.

            And my last point is, are you suggesting that no people who are/were gun enthusiasts/members of the NRA, have not undertaken mass murder, using their your own guns?

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “The trouble with America, with this culture of a gun for every day of the week, is that it’s far easier for cranks and nutters to get hold of guns.

            The fact is, that there are incredibly lax and corrupt gun laws in the United States, which makes it even easier for those nutters to get guns.”

            Behold YOUR biased opinion, to which you are entitled, but it makes no rational, logical, morally sound case in defense of coerced disarmament by the state.

            There will always be “cranks and nutters”; however, they are the exception, not the rule, in any human population. They are greatly outnumbered by peaceful, rational, civilized individuals, many of whom are armed and capable of using firearms defensively against them–as one would against a rabid animal.

            “And my last point is, are you suggesting that no people who are/were gun enthusiasts/members of the NRA, have not undertaken mass murder, using their your own guns?”

            Your last point is unsound, a fallacious appeal to emotion, for even if there were “gun enthusiasts/members of the NRA” who committed mass murder with firearms, that would not invalidate the NRA (which does not advocate violence, with or without the use of firearms) or the individual’s right to keep and bear ANY type or quantity of firearms.

          • Peter Harris

            “”

            As I thought Col, you’re nothing but a useless Bot.

            That’s what came along with your previous message, that was included in my email from this Disqus discussion thread, with your user name.

            It just goes to show, that even Bots can be stupid and bias.

            “Your last point is unsound, a fallacious appeal to emotion…”

            You are hardly in a postion to accuse me of that, considering your previous posts, you are one hell of a gun nutter yourself.

            “…gun enthusiasts/members of the NRA” who committed mass murder with firearms, that would not invalidate the NRA (which does not advocate violence, with or without the use of firearms) or the individual’s right to keep and bear ANY type or quantity of firearms.”

            I’ll just leave you with a signature quote, from one of your fellow “libertarians.”

            “That’s not an argument.”

            — Stefan Molyneux.

    • I agree, Steven.

      Imagine if an animal/child abuser could only buy a mobile phone, electricity, and food from companies that openly supported abuse and not from any that openly oppose abuse. (He’d instantly be in a very restricted lifestyle, to say the least.)

      This is the power of an ORGANIZED marketplace that mutually support common values. The technology to facilitate this is at our fingertips. Zero coercion – complete property protection.

    • Peter Harris

      “Actually, it does bother me when other people abuse animals, children”

      Does that include shooting young kiddies in cold blood?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      The best way to protect “the very natural environment we live in” is to possess it–ALL of it–as private property, with its owner motivated by his financial investment in it to manage and maintain it well, and to do so entirely at his own expense and risk.

      • Steven Hotho

        Does private ownership and the responsibility for it also include wilderness areas, oceans, deserts, rain forests, etc.?

  • notwithabang

    Playing Devil’s Advocate:

    What mechanism protects the makers from the majority takers?
    Who or what decides upon the distribution & maintenance of public resources and infrastructure?
    By what morality do we honour the weak, the ill, and the elderly?

    This is likely the argument for limited government made by statists.

    • Katzenjammer

      The Devil take the hindmost.
      ‘What mechanism protects the makers from the majority takers?’ In a moral society – Justice through the auspices of Just Law based simply on the living rights of the Living.
      ‘Who or what decides upon the distribution & maintenance of public resources and infrastructure?’ In a moral society there are no public resources to distribute or maintain as only living individuals may hold property

      vis-à-vis other living individuals. What individuals may justly hold in common is established and maintained through fully clear and lucid contractual binds as may be woven within the bounds of extant best just law.
      ‘By what morality do we honour the weak, the ill, and the elderly?’ In a moral society, by the same morality we live to preserve and protect the the lives and living rights of the strong, the whole and young. Equal rights and equal justice are principles of man which adhere to each of us – man, woman or child – irrespective of an individual’s condition or circumstances in life.

      Sic ego credo

  • Well said, Joe! Few people realize that a society of Freedom means 7 billion people get to choose their own method of governance. There will be many variations in the mix and our simple system of 51% dominating 49% is an astonishingly low technology and primitive.

    What we need is a cheap, effective way for 7 billion people to contract with each other and build individual public reputations.

    • nck

      usually only 60% (at best ) go to the polls. So its actually 31% that dictates what happens to everyone.

      • Right, nct. And I didn’t even mention the lobbyists and oligarchs. Incredibly primitive system from a technological standpoint.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          Lobbyists names don’t appear on ballots, nor do the names of the people who hire them. They have a lot of political pull but no accountability.

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        More than that when you consider that most government employees at every level in every agency, department, SCOTUS, FBI, CIA, IRS, Federal Reserve Board, etc. ad nauseum are either directly hired or appointed, not elected by popular vote. These people remain in their positions as presidents and their administrations come and go.

        They are the real power behind the Oval Office, Senate, Congress, and they fight to maintain the status quo (a statist one) that ensures their continued employment and forcibly-funded (tax-funded) compensation packages.

      • nck

        I should add that the statistics say that 24% of the population is under 18. That leaves 76%. About 60% of eligible votes do vote, ie 45% of the population. Majority decision ,means 51% of the 45%, ie 22.5%. The US is controlled by the will of 22,5% of the people. Talk about will of the majority. Talk about democracy. Its just all talk.

    • Thank you! Exactly, 7 billion sovereign nation called individuals.

    • Alan777

      Nice in theory, but it’s like wishing/praying for world peace.
      The solution starts in your own backyard (local, state, federal) and I salute Joe for starting the conversation.

      • Human flight and space travel were also nice in theory. Then they were nice in practice.

        It starts with protecting the property of every individual. When 7 billion people have their life and property protected there will be world peace. This is another way of saying zero-coercion.

        99% of coercion comes from States.

      • Thank you, it definitely all starts at the individual.

  • A peaceful and prosperous society can’t be based on fear and punishment. That strategy is eroding the peace and prosperity we already have. I’m working on making a series of documentaries to explore the issue and find solutions. I just started a fundraising campaign for it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1289822059/cooperative-humanitys-ongoing-social-efforts

  • Maximiliano Plus Adrienne

    the south must n will rise again! it was never about slaves it was about the system which kills the human spirit!

  • Centurian

    Amen Brother! Problem is they have more guns, lawyers and bureaucrats than you do. Try not paying the taxes and suffer the liens, levies and collection efforts. It is theft. Just up front or after the fact with penalties and interest.Try getting their interest rates on any savings or investments you may have. They are purposely killing this country and trying to thin the herd of productive small businesses to feed the corporatocracy. Until you can bribe politicos with more money than GM, Tesla, the banking industry, big pharma, big ag, etc, we are all screwed. Face it, we have lived in a fascist state for decades and now it is coming to nut cutting time.

  • georgesilver

    A good piece ruined by the PS at the end. “I fully support your state going it’s separate way”. The “state is presumably made up of the majority wanting to be separate but what of the minority? Jarvis is talking as though the “state” is an individual. He confuses his own argument which until this point is good.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      I noticed that, too. He should have said, “I support you and your fellow statists seceding from California”.

loading