The Fatal Flaw

The following is an imaginary interview with an Interviewer and a Citizen. Although imaginary, it does not lessen any of the deductive reasoning processes involved. Deductive reason applies if one is looking for clarity. If the reader is not interested in clarity, stop reading now. It is not my intention here, to prove the cause and effect between the problem and its result—only to point out what I consider to be a devastating flaw in the minds of most people.

Interviewer: We all have a sense of morality within us. Without having to define it explicitly, would you agree that there are two different positions one can take in regards to morality, as follows: A) you take morality into consideration in the decisions you make in life and that’s important to you and it should be important to everybody else; B) to you there is no such thing as morality since it’s just a man-created idea but doesn’t really exist.

Citizen: I do take morality into consideration. Those who do not are actually amoral or without morals. One should be careful of those who are without a sense of morality, since they can “justify” any act of cruelty or harm that is perpetrate by one human against another.

Interviewer: Since you are the person being interviewed, let’s assume that the answers to my questions are your own opinion from now on. Since you are concerned with leading a moral life, would you steal from your neighbor and why?

Citizen: No, since stealing is immoral.

Interviewer: How do you define stealing or theft?

Citizen: The taking of another’s property without their permission whether by force or by the threat of force.

Interviewer: Do you believe that the act of using theft, force or fraud against another, is immoral, and as such, you would never sanction or condone it, even if your neighbors gave you permission to commit those acts?

Citizen: I believe and agree with that.

Interviewer: Would you sanction or condone it if everybody in the nation gave you permission to commit those acts?

Citizen: Absolutely not.

Interviewer: When the majority of the nation, through the vote, gives you permission, through your representatives, to sanction or condone and enforce theft, force and fraud, do you then consider it as moral? Realize, according to your definition of theft and your condemnation of theft, that all taxation is theft.

Citizen: When the majority considers it as moral, then it’s okay. It’s in the Constitution.

Interviewer: Do you understand how you’re contradicting yourself? How can you believe one thing and then espouse its opposite at the same time and believe that they are both true?

Citizen: Everything is relative. Everybody knows that. Why can’t I hold contradictory beliefs as part of my belief system?

Interviewer: You can hold contradictory beliefs in your mind but that isn’t what makes them true or a path to success, since recognizing a contradiction is showing that an error has been made and errors are things leading to bad results— to be avoided. There is a word for such a philosophy. It’s called hypocrisy.

I call the revelation or exposure of this person’s hypocrisy and contradictory beliefs, The Fatal Flaw. It pervades the minds of almost every citizen. I quote, “the point is that in respect of the relation between the theory and the actual practice of public affairs, the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization (use of reason) of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it. He is indifferent to the theory of things, so long as he may rehearse his formulas; and so long as he can listen to the patter of his litanies, no practical inconsistency disturbs him⎯indeed, he gives no evidence of even recognizing it as an inconsistency.” Our Enemy, The State by Albert Jay Nock, (page 12).

Most Americans come to conclusions randomly. They believe what they read in the newspapers, depending upon which newspaper they read. They see the corruption, lying and cheating that goes on before their very eyes and haven’t the foggiest idea of what goes on behind the closed doors of government. Yet they espouse their own opinions about how to solve the nation’s problems. The Fatal Flaw is responsible for class warfare, domestic war, international war and most of the conflicts between people. My fellow Americans, first get rid of your Fatal Flaw and the solutions will automatically follow, as you realize that the only path to peace and harmony in the world is through the Science of Voluntaryism. The Fatal Flaw is responsible for the devastation that awaits the human race.

Continue Reading

Thinking Outside of the Box

In the movie, 2001, A Space Odyssey, the opening scene portrays a tribe of apes fighting with a rival tribe. The extent of the violence is limited to grunting and chest-beating. The next scene shows one of the apes sitting before a huge monolith which begins to hum, gaining the attention of the ape. (The writer of the story suggested that the monolith represented a cosmological force that imparted reason to that ape). Suddenly the ape picks up a femur bone of a dead animal lying next to him and the viewing audience can see him thinking. He begins to strike the ground with it multiple times, ever harder and harder and the scene ends. The next scene shows the two tribes fighting but this time the ape uses the femur to successfully fight off the invading tribe, thus innovating the first tool. The ape, in utter ecstasy, throws the bone high in the air and the bone become a space ship in the year 2001. Thus, apes became homo sapiens. This may be the very first example of the idea of “thinking outside of the box.”

There are basically two cognitive methods to solve problems successfully—improving on what is or creating something entirely new. When Isaac Newton discovered the laws of motion, I venture to guess that the first thing that he said to himself was something like, “what if?” That “what if” was the first step on his road to thinking outside of the box leading to his magnificent discovery of many of the secrets of the universe. In addition, by thinking outside of the box he also invented a new math called calculus that enabled him to put his theoretical ideas into practice. Most of the great subsequent discoveries and inventions from others spewed forth from what Newton created and we all owe him a great sense of gratitude for what he accomplished.

The same is true for all of the original extremely important creations of the past, from the invention of computers to unraveling the secrets of DNA, to Archimedes discovery of the law of buoyancy, to Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. “What if?” Those two words have been an inspiration to the minds of the various cosmological and scientific creators of the past and have been a blessing to civilization.

Therefore, I ask, what if the present and past paths chosen towards peace and harmony amongst the people of this planet have been the wrong paths? What if those paths previously chosen have been responsible for the fact that, not only has mankind failed to solve our most serious problems, but those same paths have made it worse? What if the attempt to improve upon those antiquated methods that have failed in the past have, in fact, prevented us from looking elsewhere for the answers? Most people will agree that there is more conflict, disharmony, mal-contentment and civil disobedience today than there has ever been in the history of our planet. What if that which is needed is thinking outside of the box?

The box that has failed throughout history is called politics. Most solutions have been sought through the ballot box with little success. In fact, perhaps it’s the ballot box that is responsible for the class warfare that is rampant throughout, not only our country, but throughout the world. A new thinking outside of the box may be the answer, just as it was when the great minds of the past innovated their various solutions.

I submit that by continuing to think within the present box of politics and ballots, in the long run, mankind will cease to exist on this planet. We are ballot-boxing ourselves into oblivion.

I believe that the ideology of Voluntaryism is that very “outside of the box thinking” that must be studied, understood and then implemented by the masses in order to accomplish the goals of peace, freedom, harmony and prosperity that we all desire. I have written many articles on the subject. In addition, there are many internet sites on which one can read about the subject, such as

In addition, google “Voluntaryism” and read the many articles and explanations about the subject. A wealth of education awaits you.

Continue Reading

Let’s Take a Time Out

My fellow Americans, most of you believe that the ills of society can be blamed on various scapegoats: individuals, liberals, conservatives, greedy businessmen, unions, gays, atheists, religious groups, ethnic groups and many more. Tell me it isn’t true. You have secret thoughts such as: “if only, (pick the individual or groups that you hate the most), would disappear off the face of the earth all would be right with the world.” Liberals would like to get rid of conservatives. Conservatives would favor that liberals disappear. Some Americans would like to see Mexicans disappear. Democrats would like to get rid of the NRA while some whites would get rid the blacks and some blacks would like to see the whites disappear. These secret wishes infect most people—not all.

Take a time out! Think the following question to yourselves: How come with all of the hundreds of thousands of laws that have been passed since the inception of America, our social structure is collapsing to the point where hateful class warfare has developed? Our infrastructure, our education system, our justice system, our healthcare system, our welfare system and our defense system are all in a deplorable state. Why is it that way?

Isn’t it about time to realize that you can no longer blame it on your favorite scapegoat? Perhaps it’s not individuals or groups of individuals who are responsible for the present situation. Perhaps it’s the System itself. How can any rational person believe that a minority or even a majority can determine what is right, how to bring about prosperity, how to bring about peace and harmony? In engineering or mechanics, if the system is flawed the engine won’t provide. A society is also a system and so in order to provide those things conducive to its best survival, basic principles and premises pertaining to human nature must first be discovered and implemented. If the system is flawed the implementation will not work. That’s why we are floundering and we will soon drown in our own stupidity.

Stop blaming presidents from FDR all the way forward to Trump. They all meant to do the right thing. However, it can’t be done when the system is one where it is impossible to arrive at the desired ends by implementing means that are not conducive to those ends. They are out of harmony.

Stop supporting the group to which you belong. Stop supporting the individual politician you love the most. Stop hating those people and groups you hate the most and start questioning the System. The System that you have been supporting all your lives has failed you. It can be described as a System whereby various classes of people vie for the power to coerce others to do their bidding via the ballot box. Only two methods exist in dealing with one another: voluntarily or by coercion (force-fraud-theft). There is no third method. Force, fraud and theft has failed you, not the various politicians or groups that you hate. Realize that only voluntary action can provide for the prosperity and peace you desire. If you want peace you must support peaceful methods. That should make sense to a rational mind. Coercion is not a peaceful method. In fact, if all transactions among people were voluntary, peace would automatically be bestowed upon us. When you have a system that condones coercion you automatically create victors and victims at war with each other. Basic principle: Man does not function well when coerced.

All of the systems of the past that have been tried to create prosperity and peace have failed because they all involved the use of force, fraud and theft as their tool: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Democracy, Democratic Republicanism, Constitutionalism, Monarchy, State Capitalism (what we presently have), Theocracy, Plutocracy.

Most of you claim that you don’t trust people to voluntarily do the right thing so you come to the conclusion that some authority must step in and force them to do the right thing or prevent them from doing the wrong thing. But that is the system that you have been supporting since 1789, the year of the Constitution. It has taken on many forms but its basic principle is the use of coercion to attain the goal of prosperity and peace. Stop looking at the use of the ballot box as a peaceful way of providing for the common good. It is not peaceful. Aren’t the authorities people? So why trust the authorities to do the right thing?

Let’s take a time out and look at these ideas. See our present System for what it is—a bad system that breeds hatred, inefficiency and immorality. Look into the ideology of Voluntaryism. Go to Voluntaryism on the internet with an open mind to learn more.

Continue Reading

The Master of All Mistakes

We must learn from our mistakes. The master of all mistakes (the worst idea of all bad ideas) is the belief that force (coercion) for a good intention is moral, honorable and without adverse consequences in the long run. The “Camelot Factor,” (Might for Right) has been the modus operandi of the human race for most of recorded history—and it’s failing.

In fact, force for a good intention is worse than force for a bad intention because the harm created by force for a bad intention is recognizable from the outset, while the harm created by force for a good intention is cloaked in the shadow of pseudo-humanitarianism and it always takes decades for the resulting harm to rear its ugly head and be understood.

When the time span between the inception of a wrong and its tragic consequence takes hundreds of years, it is very difficult for the populace to accept the cause and effect relationship, especially among the intelligent, well-educated and successful people of the country. Well, it’s rearing its ugly head here in this rambling and I’m the person making you aware of it.

Today we are looking at the natural and logical results of centuries of coercion and it has been expanding at a geometric rate since approximately 1890. A sub problem, when pointing out this major problem, is that hardly anyone is willing to admit that the various political programs they favor are, in fact, examples of coercion because they see those programs as examples of humanitarianism and they see themselves as proponents of humanitarian ideals. They are wrong—dead wrong!

All of the adverse domino effects that have placed the human race in its current dangerous position can be traced back to one cause—the acceptance of coercion as the method for solving societal problems. It’s so obvious that hardly anyone sees it or wants to see it.

Continue Reading

Why the Schism?

“Food for Thought” is an original column appearing sporadically, by Norman Imberman.

The debates and arguments continue. Both sides can’t understand why their opponents can’t see their own point of view. The battles between Progressives/Liberals and Libertarian/Conservatives are the most vociferous. Why does such contentiousness exist? Here is my analysis. It boils down to some specific realizations.

Realization One (The Contradiction Problem)

Many years ago I had a discussion with a friend who was a liberal and I was at that time a conservative. We could never see eye to eye. It was a frustrating time for me and I guess for him too. After many months of political bickering, I said during one of our debates, “Can’t you see the contradictions and inconsistencies in your arguments?” His response was very revealing, which was, “Who said I must be without contradiction. Where is it written that I must be consistent?” I realized at that moment that all of my efforts to convince him of my position were futile from the start. There can be no understanding between those who adhere to an epistemology based upon reality and those who don’t have any epistemology whatsoever as their guide. In a serious discussion with an opponent it is essential to come to an agreement that contradictions do not exist in reality and the identification of a contradiction is evidence that an error has been made. Without agreement on that subject do not go any further.

Realization Two (The Basic Principles Problem)

Progressives/Liberals and most Conservatives have no use for basic principles so they have developed a knack for obscuring the basic principle argument by quoting history, discussing only issues instead of ideas, presenting their opponents with statistics, and false analysis of causality. With no basic principles as a guide for their thinking, all they have to fall back upon is their feelings and the discussion of issues and their own false interpretation of history. The discussion of issues without an agreement upon basic principles becomes a “says you, says me” debate destined for nowhere and ending in frustration.

Realization Three (The Language Perversion Problem)

As described in his book 1984, George Orwell wrote about the perversion of language by the tyrannical government in the story. In the story, citizens were brainwashed into accepting new definitions of words as a method of mind control. Liberals today have no carefully thought out definitions for the words they use, nor do they desire to think about it. When pressed to define their terms they respond with something on the order of, “I don’t have to define my terms. Everybody knows what I mean. You are just trying to trick me.” University professors have been the main harbingers of this philosophy. Today important words, like freedom, slavery, crime, theft, kidnapping, and fraud have become obfuscated by Progressives/Liberals. For example, in the past, theft has been defined and understood by everyone as the taking of one’s property without their permission and is considered to be wrong (immoral). Progressives/Liberals have made a mockery of the word when they agree with that definition and agree that theft is wrong but then claim that government redistribution of wealth is not theft, even though the act of “redistribution” falls within the definition of theft. The same is true for the word “taxation.” In order to assuage their guilt, they claim that taxation and redistribution of wealth is a “necessary evil.” I ask, “Necessary for whom?” My answer is, “Necessary for those who profit from the evil.” Words are not just a means of communication. They give the speaker the inestimable value of knowing what one is talking about. The result of arguing with a person who perverts words can only be frustrating, resulting in a feeling of enmity toward one’s opponent.

Realization Four (The Structural Problem)

The various sciences have developed a conceptual hierarchical structure upon which to stand. It is the axiomatic discoveries (principles) and the concepts that are built upon those basic principles that enable them to be considered a science. The result is the fantastic progress that has been made by science, thus giving mankind benefits that could never be imagined before the industrial revolution. All structures (even societal structures) must be built from the ground up. Libertarians and even conservatives realize this when they support the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. With all of its flaws, those documents began with basic principles. Conservatives and Libertarians respect those documents. In addition, books like Restoring the American Dream, The Market for Liberty, Liberty a Path to Its Discovery, Atlas Shrugged, The Mainspring of Human Progress, Human Action, Common Sense Economics, Taming the Violence of Faith, and The Road to Serfdom all present a coherent structure that results in very similar conclusions.

Karl Marx had tried, but failed, to present a logical basis for his conclusions in The Communist Manifesto. He presented no basic foundation for his ideas and the tome has been discarded as a foolish if not an evil instrument of destruction. Ask any Liberal to explain his own ideology of society it will become obvious that he never thought about it in spite of the fact that he can go on adamantly describing how a society should function, based upon his wishes, dreams, whims and prayers, as if his feelings were tools of cognition. Where are the ideas behind his methods and conclusions? There are none.

Realization Five (The Values and Goals Problem)

This realization is most disturbing. Since the establishment of our Republic all voters and politicians had the same goals in mind for our country no matter what side of the political spectrum they stood upon. They stood united. That has changed. The goal of the Libertarian ideology is freedom, while the goal of Liberals is equality and leveling of the playing field in all areas. It is easy to see that such different goals must utilize different methods. Once again there can be no meeting of the minds among the opposing factions. Creating equality and a level playing field in all areas must, by necessity, utilize coercion as its method of achievement, since equality and level playing fields do not exist in nature. The coercion takes the form of taxation (theft), regulation (force), behavior-by-permission (force), wage laws (force), rent control laws (force), eminent domain, (theft), Social Security (force and fraud). Corruption becomes a way of life for the politicians who, with their corruption, also set an example for some members of the private sector. The use of these tactics might get the Liberals their goals in the short run but they will feel the pain and evil of it on their own hides and everyone else’s hides in the long run. If freedom is no longer a value, slavery takes precedence. It has already begun. Witness the chaos and slavery encroaching upon our nation at this time. It is only the beginning.

Realization Six (The General World-View Problem)

The world-view of the opponents is totally out of phase with each other in all areas of inquiry, epistemologically and metaphysically. Where one sees freedom, the other sees slavery. Where one sees profit, the other sees exploitation. Where one sees self-defense, the other sees aggression and murder. Where one sees moral action, the other sees immoral action. Where one sees redistribution of wealth, the other sees theft. Where one sees taxation, the other sees theft. Where one sees that A is A, the other sees that A is non-A. Where one believes in the existence of an objective reality, the other believes in the subjectivism of reality. The differences are irreconcilable. Beware, my right-wing and libertarian friends: if early in a discussion with an opponent you identify any one of the above realizations, walk away, for you are embarking upon an act of futility. Beware, my left-wing opponents: if early in a discussion with an opponent you identify any of the above realizations, walk away, for you are embarking upon an act of futility.

The above points represent what in my opinion causes the rift between the left and the right, but both suffer from the same disease and favor coercion (involuntary action).

It’s my opinion that all people who reason in harmony with reality will come to the same conclusions. Thus, if the liberals and conservatives of this world took notice of the points in this essay and took up the challenge of adhering to respect for the concepts of “consistency, non-contradiction, syllogisms, principles” and realized the necessity of consistently defining basic words like freedom, slavery, theft, coercion, fraud, moral, immoral, etc., they would come to the same conclusions as the voluntaryists of this world (those who support the doctrine of only voluntary action). The schism would end.

All six of these realizations are explanations for the failure of the opponents to reach an understanding and reasons for the continuing antagonism they feel towards each other. Both factions cannot be correct. It is not just a mere difference of opinion. If the Progressive/Liberal world-view of reality continues to take precedence, the world will return to the dark ages. The same is true for the Conservative/Republican world-view. Once people understand and embrace the Science of Voluntaryism view of reality the result will be more prosperity, security and happiness than the world has ever experienced.

Continue Reading

The Golden Rule

“Food for Thought” is an original column appearing sporadically, by Norman Imberman.

If everyone preached and actually lived by the Golden Rule they would realize that political action produces victims, which is antithetical to the Golden Rule. People of faith should understand this better than most. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you AND do not do unto to others as you would not want them to do unto you. Those are words to live by. In effect they are saying, try to make all of your solutions Win-Win solutions. Stop and consider if someone will find himself in a Win-Lose situation by your approval, and if so, do NOT sanction it.

All political voters in effect give tacit permission to the politicians to hire gunmen (police, FBI, CIA, HLS) to visit harm upon their fellow man, through the use of force or the threat of the use of force. Each voter believes that he/she can be excused from such immoral behavior by thinking of it as “good coercion”, although some folks never acknowledge it as coercion at all because “it’s in the Constitution” and how can that document be wrong? Good coercion is an oxymoron. (Self-defense is not coercion).

When people are taxed (robbed) they are in a win-lose situation of harm. When people lose their homes to eminent domain (robbery) it’s a win-lose situation of harm. When men are drafted (kidnapping) it’s a win-lose situation of harm. When a woman prefers to terminate a pregnancy and the State prevents it or harms her and her surgeon who performs it, that too is coercion and a win-lose situation of harm. When businesses are told what they can and cannot charge for their services or products (coercion) it’s a win-lose situation of harm. When workers cannot bargain for wages that they are willing to accept (coercion) it’s a win-lose situation of harm. When people want to open a business but must pay a fee to the State or else they will be prevented from opening that business (coercion) it’s a win-lose situation of harm. When doctors must accept fees mandated by the State (coercion) it’s a win-lose situation of harm. (I suppose freedom of choice remains in effect only if it’s the “right” choice).

Most of the suffering in our country is the natural consequence of making a mockery of the Golden Rule. Almost everyone pays lip service to the Rule but hardly any live by it. The major crime of political voting is antithetical to the Golden Rule. How in all good conscience can a person condemn the activities of the Mafia and other hoodlums when they coerce “protection money” from businesses but condone the same activity when it’s performed by the State? How can a criminal activity suddenly and magically be transformed into a humanitarian act by the sweep of the pen of the legislators? That’s a rhetorical question since their standard answer is — “because it’s in the Constitution or it’s for the common good.” The common good is an abstraction. It doesn’t exist. There are only individual goods.

Another major cause of the present tragic situation in which we find ourselves is the devastating condition of the halls of education, which in reality are halls of indoctrination and mis-education. Our universities are actually halls of occupied territory. Most interviewed members of the millennium class believe that George W. Bush was responsible for more deaths than Lenin or Stalin. Only an indoctrinated mind can come up with such a belief.

Whenever I bring up this subject I receive vociferous responses that vilify me, which is what can be expected from those who were indoctrinated. They become defensive. But, once in awhile someone will take a step back and think about what I am pointing out and realize that they are guilty of accepting their mis-education and indoctrination as the “truth”, and which starts them on a path of thinking for themselves. That’s what I call intellectual honesty. It happened to me. I was a product of the public school and university indoctrination system. At age 31 someone said the same things to me as I am repeating here, which led me on a road less traveled, and which turned out to be an extremely exciting and illuminating path. Don’t get your backs up upon reading this. Instead, give it some thought and then take a risk and read more about the subject of voluntaryism on the internet, especially You may like where it brings you.

The following books are also of great value in understanding the destructiveness of any State: The Law by Frederic Bastiat, Restoring the American Dream by Robert Ringer, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Taming the Violence of Faith, subtitled, Win-Win Solutions for Our World in Crisis by Jay Snelson.

Continue Reading