Well, at least from one person’s point of view.
There was a lot of railing against Black Friday and consumerism in general. Truth is, this is what moves the economies of a society along. How can an economy support a society without it? It can’t.
For the last week the company I work for has been working hard to resolve all the requests for services that were ordered last weekend. Those four days alone have generated enough work to keep the company busy for a month. That is on top of the normal work that is generated for the company’s services. The beautiful thing is that none of the business was due to, or hampered by the state. Well, not specifically. Truth is, this is but one of thousands of examples of voluntary interaction that generated economic activity for mutual benefit. It’s how it’s supposed to work.
Here’s to more of this type of economic activity!
A recent article at Reason.com commented on a vote by the San Rafael City Council vote to ban smoking in one’s home. The vote was unanimous. This begs the question, if it was unanimous, why have the vote at all? If all the residents of San Rafael did not smoke in their homes, there’s no reason to waste public funds on a unnecessary vote.
It stands to reason that this is not the case. It is safe to assume that there are some smokers in San Rafael, and that they enjoy this habit in their own homes. So how could the City Council have produced a unanimous vote on this issue? Should there have been some members of the Council that smoke? Or at least support such activities in the privacy of one’s home? Apparently not.
This is how statism works. A group of individuals attain power and then decided what’s best for everyone else. Too bad if you disagree with the ruling body. In fact, those that do not generally become a new class of criminals. Everyone else, regardless of their beliefs comply so as not to be criminalized.
This is why the state is immoral and all its actions illegal. This is why the state needs to be closed down and individuals left to determine how best to govern themselves.
The story goes that a very young wife was asked by her husband why she always cut the tail off the turkey before cooking it. Her reply was “that’s how my mother did it.” No further explanation was given. Some time later the wife asked her mother why. Her mother’s reply was “because the pan wasn’t big enough.”
While anecdotal, this story goes far to explain the “just because that is how it’s done” society we live in. We live in a social contract supposedly created by the Constitution just because our parents, and their parents, and so on did. There’s just one sticky point: the “consent of the governed” line in the Declaration of Independence. When did I consent to this contract?
The proponents of this arrangement have given many examples of consent: taxes, voting, being born. The problem is that all of these examples are ones of implied consent. No contract is valid to states that a uninvolved third party has implied to consent to the contract and therefore must abide the rules. It would never hold up in court.
Going back to the story, it is assumed that the wife stopped cutting off the tail of the bird because there was no point to it with her larger pan.
Now that we know that we have not consented to the “social contract” we live under, what are we going to do?
Recently, Realfarmacy.com ran an article by Mike Adams (the Health Ranger of NaturalNews.com fame) under “Naked Juice Class Action Settlement Announced” entitled “Here’s how to claim $45 from PepsiCo even without proof of purchase.”
At the heart of the suite is Naked Juice’s fraudulent claim that the brand contained no GMO, while the suite claims that it does contain such ingredients.
Throw all of that out. GMO is an undecided issue. I’m talking about the heart of the article, which is that a massive class action suite full of fraudulent claims would send a powerful message to Pepsi Co. to stop using GMO in Naked Juice products.
How can one claim they are for reduced government, private property, and free markets also claim that lying, cheating, and stealing from a company is okay simply because of the products they use?
At the core, Voluntaryism is for property rights and mutually beneficial exchange between individuals. Maybe GMO is bad, but to quote a former president, is “destroying free market principles to save the free market” good? Of course not. Individuals like Mike Adams should not be held up as examples of true Voluntaryism and free market principles.