Why is politics a subject that causes heated arguments? Is it because one political idea is just as good as any other, and therefore simply a matter of preference? Not likely, since we can see with our own eyes that some social systems are worse than others-objectively so. We only need to look at the collapse of communism for an example. Similarly, who would seriously advocate absolute monarchy, or fascism, in this day and age?

So if politics produces observable results, why are there so many serious problems? Why do problems seem to get worse, year after year? Why is there so much cynicism and frustration? Perhaps the answers begin by applying some common sense.

This work will define the "basic social rule", a principle that virtually everyone abides by. This rule is already fully applied in many areas of life, where things work out quite well and we experience no social problems. But we make exceptions to the basic social rule in many other areas of life, and here we see very serious social problems.

The goal is to demonstrate that making these exceptions causes or aggravates the problems. This common sense approach can then be used to explore solutions that work, thus making political discussions more fruitful.

This work will use some particular social issues by way of example. Detailed analysis of specific issues is also available, and interested readers will find numerous footnotes referring to some of this extensive literature and research (see Part 11).

PART 1: THE BASIC SOCIAL RULE

"It is wrong to use unprovoked force against others."

Virtually everyone abides by this rule in their daily lives.

PART 2: EXCEPTIONS TO THE BASIC SOCIAL RULE

When someone does use unprovoked force against others, it is called a crime. Although they have made an exception to suit their own purposes, it is still considered wrong by everyone else.

PART 3: WHY IS IT WRONG TO USE UNPROVOKED FORCE AGAINST OTHERS?

Practical reason: it makes things worse.

Moral reason: it creates victims.

PART 4: SHOULD ANY PERSON BE THE VICTIM OF UNPROVOKED FORCE?

Common sense tells us that no person deserves to be the victim of unprovoked force, but society makes an exception. It does not view people as victims of unprovoked force when the user of such force is a government.

PART 5: SHOULD ANYONE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE UNPROVOKED FORCE?

Common sense tells us that no one should have the right to use unprovoked force, but society makes an exception. It tolerates government having the right to use unprovoked force against people.

PART 6: HOW DOES GOVERNMENT USE UNPROVOKED FORCE?

Governments use unprovoked force by taxing and regulating. These are compulsory, not voluntary. The threat of harm is usually sufficient to insure compliance; but harm can also be used against those who do not comply. Of course many products and services government provide are still very important, nevertheless, they are provided by means of unprovoked force.

PART 7: IS IT APPROPRIATE TO SCRUTINIZE AN INSTITUTION?

Any institution, whether it be monarchy, slavery, government, etc., should be scrutinized as to whether it uses unprovoked force. This may be unpopular at first, but if the institution does use unprovoked force, society eventually expects it to honor the basic social rule. Institutions that do not use unprovoked force survive on their own merits.

PART 8: AREAS WHERE THE BASIC SOCIAL RULE IS ALREADY HONORED 100%

Many products and services we get today are provided in an open competitive environment, where even government is expected to follow the basic rule. These products and services are found in abundance, in wide varieties of price and quality, and without crises. This naturally occurs in the absence of unprovoked force.

PART 9: AREAS WHERE THE BASIC SOCIAL RULE IS VIOLATED

The areas of life provided or controlled by the unprovoked force of government are those areas with the most serious social problems. Such problems include shortages, poor quality, monopoly prices, and sometimes even crime and corruption. This happens precisely because unprovoked force is involved.

PART 10: EMBRACING THE BASIC SOCIAL RULE 100%

The realization that government uses unprovoked force can be uncomfortable. But this is alleviated by an objective study of the areas controlled by government, which always reveals better results in an open competitive environment. This practical evidence supports the judgment that unprovoked force is always wrong, even when used by government.

PART 11: SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF APPLYING THE BASIC SOCIAL RULE IN POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS 

"It is wrong to use unprovoked force against others."¹

Virtually everyone abides by this rule in their daily lives.²

This statement has been called the "basic social rule" because it is a rule that comes naturally to people without having to be taught. Of course it is the very thing our parents did teach since childhood, for example, "don't hurt others", "don't steal from others", etc.³

Think of any fight between two children. When it is brought to an adult, what is the first question asked? "Who started it?". The children themselves understand the basic rule...they often anticipate the adult's question by shouting "he started it!". It is obvious that whoever initiates the use of force is wrong.

Note that responding to force, on the other hand, may be justified, as in self-defense, but this is true only when someone has used force first.⁴

Culturally, one sees this rule in every society that exists, and in most every culture back through recorded history. It is hard to imagine a civilized society that allowed the majority of people to use unprovoked force against each other. If there ever was such a society, it must have disintegrated rapidly. The basic social rule is necessary to human survival.

How is "force" defined, as it is used in the basic rule?

The fourth form of force (threatening others) is the hardest to grasp because it is the least tangible. In the other three, the harm is concrete: a person is hurt, or their property is damaged or stolen. But when someone threatens others, the use of force takes the form of a choice imposed upon them. For example, when a kidnapper calls the parents of the child he is holding, he demands one million dollars or else threatens to kill the child. That is a choice being forced upon the parents. When the parents choose to pay, it is not a free choice. Any time a person is threatened into making a choice, they do so "under duress". That is, out of the fear of harm from someone else. That is not a free choice, and that is why we say it is wrong.

Examine all four forms of force mentioned, and notice the common element: they are always unprovoked. A person never wants to be hurt or robbed; they never want to have their property damaged; they never want to be threatened. This is what makes such actions wrong.

In people's daily lives, the basic rule is normal conduct. You rarely, and probably never, use unprovoked force against others. You do not hurt others or their property, steal from others, or threaten others. Virtually everyone you know, or have ever known, lives the same way. This basic conduct is so universal because it is so natural to human social existence.⁵

 * * * * * *

Exceptions to the basic rule happen every day, and they are called crimes. People hurt others physically, steal, damage property or threaten others. Of course, the criminal does not think he or she is doing wrong...they justify it somehow. But what is important is that the vast majority of people (practically 100%) do think it is wrong. The Los Angeles riots of 1992 were a massive example of widespread unprovoked force. The rioters and looters justified their conduct with many excuses. But the rest of us knew, without having to be told, that what had happened was wrong. We frequently heard community leaders and commentators saying "they may have had grievances, but they went about it in the wrong way". The word wrong appeared over and over again. This is the basic social rule at work. In our everyday lives, unprovoked force is considered unacceptable.

Practical reason: it makes things worse.¹

Moral reason: it creates victims.²

We will begin with the practical reason.

 Notice that even in a small, petty crime, things get worse. Say someone steals $100. The victim is clearly worse off by the $100, not to mention their psychological suffering. The stolen money will not be spent or saved as intended. The criminal appears better off by $100, however, it is only temporary. That is because stolen property is usually squandered. He did not acquire the property the way the victim did (by earning it), so he does not value the property the way the victim did.³

But a criminal is also worse off psychologically. The use of unprovoked force against others is something that compromises a person's integrity, especially when the crime is successful. This makes them more likely to continue doing it.

So altogether, on balance, things are worse off when someone uses unprovoked force against others. Now it may be claimed that it does not matter who got to use the stolen money, because either way it is spent for some purpose; thus there would really be no net loss. But this argument ignores economic law, which demonstrates a real overall loss when wealth is not used as intended by the true owner.⁴

But when we multiply the magnitude of the crime, the damage extends far beyond just the victims and criminals. Secondary effects ripple out in unexpected ways. In the L.A. riots, families of the victims were affected and businesses suffered, as did people who worked at and patronized those businesses. Insurance companies suffered or even closed, which then affected their policy holders, employees, families of their employees, and so on. Anyone who witnessed was affected somehow; in some cases racial hatred re-emerged. The true total damage was incalculable.

This is the practical, real-world, concrete reason that it is wrong to use unprovoked force against others: things simply get worse. But there is the more compelling, moral reason: initiating force creates victims. Human beings do not like to see people being made into victims-or be victims themselves. This reason, the moral reason, is actually a "bedrock" reason, because it is unconditionally true. In any example of the initiation of force against others, without exception, these others are victims. This is inescapable. The practical reason (things get worse) is true virtually every time, but there are cases in which you could argue that things actually may have gotten better after someone used unprovoked force. So if we looked only at the practical side, we would have to say unprovoked force was appropriate. But our moral reason is always there. Unprovoked force is always wrong because it always creates a victim.

For example, suppose I see a homeless bum being given $10 as a hand-out. I think "that money would be better spent at a children's hospital; the bum would just waste it". So I steal the money and immediately donate it to the children's hospital. If we only focused on the practical side, I could plausibly argue that things are better off after I stole that money. So was I wrong? Of course I was: it is always wrong to use unprovoked force. The moral reason says I created a victim. That I cannot explain away. It does not matter if the victim is a bum or not, rich or poor, or any other label. He is a person. And it does not matter if I believe I made things better by doing it. If I make a victim out of him, I am wrong, regardless of what good I claim comes out of it.⁵ You cannot justify an immoral act by trying to connect it to a higher purpose.

 * * * * * *

Throughout history society has tolerated the use of unprovoked force, mainly by defining "person" very narrowly, or by placing social class labels above the status of "person". When slavery was an institution, slaves were considered property, not people.¹ So using unprovoked force against a slave was acceptable (the slave was not seen as a victim). Similarly, many people were allowed to be victimized because their social status exempted them from the basic rule. A woman's status as "wife" was placed above her status as a "person", and made her an extension of her husband. If a husband hurt his wife, it was acceptable behavior and she was not viewed as a victim.

But as society matured, it embraced all people as people, and it elevated the status of "person" above virtually every social label.² The trend has moved toward 100%; the status of "person" supersedes all social labels except one.

The only label left that currently supersedes the status of "person" is "citizen". An individual's status as a human being is lower than their status as a subject of the state. In this category alone (at least at this stage in history) people can be the victims of unprovoked force, as long as the user of such force is a government.³

 * * * * * *

In past history, many groups had the right to use unprovoked force against others. For example, kings and other royalty pretty well did as they pleased with the lives of their subjects. Feudal lords had similar power over their serfs. Slave owners could use force against slaves, and so on. But as society evolved, the groups with such social sanction were one by one made subject to the basic social rule. Society's trend has moved upward toward 100%, that is, the basic social rule (which says it is wrong to use unprovoked force against others) has been applied to more and more people and groups, until all people and almost all groups are seen as doing something wrong if they use unprovoked force against others.

Which brings us to this stage in history, when the only group left which enjoys the right to use unprovoked force against others is government. Society excludes government from the basic social rule; using unprovoked force is not seen as something wrong, though it is more accurate to say it is simply not seen (see Part 7). Of course, unprovoked force, by definition, still yields the same results regardless of what person or group uses it. It still creates victims. And the net result of such force is still that things get worse. Nevertheless, society has not yet cast an objective, critical eye toward this aspect of the institution of government.

 * * * * * *

Governments use unprovoked force by taxing and regulating. These are compulsory, not voluntary. The threat of harm is usually sufficient to insure compliance; but harm can also be used against those who do not comply. Of course many products and services government provide are still very important, nevertheless, they are provided by means of unprovoked force.¹

Is it in fact true that governments are allowed to use unprovoked force against others? The average person would probably answer "no". So it makes sense to test this assertion.

A government, in order to operate at all, functions by taxing and regulating. Actually, the regulatory power can only exist if a government first taxes, since it could not operate without funds. So we will begin with taxation.

Remember the four forms that unprovoked force can take: harming others, damaging their property, stealing their property, or threatening them. Taxation falls under the categories of threatening others and stealing property.² Governments tax people with the understanding that there is no free choice in the matter. They must pay taxes, or suffer the consequences. And those consequences involve harm done to them, such as attachment of their property or jail. The consequences would be even worse for someone who refused to pay, or refused to be taken to jail.³ In such a case, the threat would be carried out. But these things usually do not happen-not because they cannot happen, but simply because people comply by paying taxes. Certainly people have different reasons for complying. But this does not change the fact that taxes are compulsory.

Consider for example the kidnapped child whose parents decide to pay the ransom. Remember they do it under duress-out of the fear of harm if they do not. Or consider someone pointing a gun at you saying "your money or your life!" You probably give him the money. But it is not a free choice, because you fear the consequences if you do not. At its root, taxation is the same. On the surface, people pay voluntarily. But most people are also aware of the consequences if they do not pay.

To further illustrate that taxes are not voluntary, consider this scenario: assume the government announced one day that henceforth they would operate strictly on our voluntary contributions. We are told that we may pay the government as much or as little as we want, without penalty. If such an announcement were made, we could then expect the following: employees would instruct their employers to reduce or eliminate those payroll deductions they previously had no choice over. Merchants would stop adding sales tax to their customers' purchases, which they were previously forced to collect. Small and large businesses alike would reduce or eliminate taxes they formerly had no choice about paying. And so on. Of course, governments do not and can not make such an announcement, since people, if free to choose, would obviously not pay. Thus the government makes taxes compulsory. People or their businesses must pay taxes or suffer the consequences. Pay, or else. This is the very definition of a threat. And compliance with a threat is done under duress.

However, it should be noted and stressed that this analysis of taxes does not pass judgment on the importance of services provided by government. Certainly many services are necessary; some indeed are essential. But that is an issue on the "practical" side, which we will discuss later. The focus for now is the moral view that taxation is unprovoked force, in the form of stealing and threatening others. And also that, at least at this point in history, governments have the general sanction of society to break the basic social rule in order to fund themselves.

Regulation is another compulsory aspect of governments. Like taxes, they are rules that you must follow, or else harm will be done to you. Once again, an honest objective scrutiny reveals that regulations, too, are threats against others. But again, this does not judge whether the goals behind regulations are good or bad. It is merely to reveal them as forms of unprovoked force.⁴

 * * * * * *

Any institution, whether it be monarchy, slavery, government, etc., should be scrutinized as to whether it uses unprovoked force. This may be unpopular at first, but if the institution does use unprovoked force, society eventually expects it to honor the basic social rule. Institutions that do not use unprovoked force survive on their own merits.¹

If society were to ignore certain actions simply because they were done by an institution, then many evils of the past would still be around. For example, consider the institution of slavery. Prior to the 19^th century, slavery was an established social institution.² Those who advocated the abolition of slavery were seen as radicals and crackpots. Later, society began to absorb the moral arguments for abolition. When people cast a critical eye at this institution, they did not like what they saw.³ But change did not happen immediately. For a time, the issue of abolition was controversial, to say the least. But the basic rule won out. Eventually society fully realized that it was wrong to use unprovoked force against others, yes, even racial minorities. Today we look back and wonder how otherwise good and fair people could have allowed such an institution. They allowed it primarily because it was an institution: something they were born with, grew up with, and grew old with. As such, they never really looked at it critically and objectively.

Similarly, other groups (such as royalty) which used to have the right to use unprovoked force, no longer do. These rights also withered away in the face of honest scrutiny. And society only benefited from expecting these institutions to honor the basic social rule.

No institution should be free from scrutiny. If scrutiny reveals that people are free to participate in the institution or not, as they choose, then the institution survives on its own merits.

A good example of an institution that can withstand scrutiny is religion in America. Those who advocate religion have no power to force others into it. And those who do not practice religion have no power to prevent others from participating. This institution flourishes strictly on its own merits. Everyone chooses as they see fit. And even though these choices result in a very wide variety of religions and levels of involvement, there is very little religious strife.⁴ But this is not surprising, because people are free to decide for themselves. On the contrary, we could easily imagine the strife that would result if one particular religion were given the right to force everyone else to follow it, or if a non-religious group were given the right to prevent others from being religious.⁵

To repeat, no institution should be free from scrutiny. If it does not use unprovoked force, it has nothing to fear from scrutiny. If it does, then it deserves an even closer look.

Which brings us to governments. To recognize that government breaks the basic rule requires an objective attitude. Instead, most of us are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that taxes and regulations are really a form of unprovoked force.⁶ This is why it helps to put ourselves in mind of the early abolitionists, who thought about slavery in a level-headed way even though it was an accepted institution by most everyone else. If we are successful in detaching our emotions from the plain facts, the plain facts become obvious.

Of course, understanding the reality of taxes and regulations may still leave us uncomfortable, after all, many services governments are supposed to provide or regulate are important. To call into question the methods governments use, may appear to criticize the services themselves. But keep in mind that only the means are being examined, not the goals.⁷ Knowing this can make it easier to be objective.

 * * * * * *

Many products and services we get today are provided in an open competitive environment, where even government is expected to follow the basic rule. These products and services are found in abundance, in wide varieties of price and quality, and without crises. This naturally occurs in the absence of unprovoked force.¹

We have already discussed religion, in which there is very little strife because people decide for themselves whether to participate or not. The same can be said of many other areas of personal choice, such as choosing friends, where to live, what clothes to wear, what forms of sports or recreation to pursue, etc. While life is not perfect, we do know how unhappy we would be if government made these choices for us.

There are also many products and services that provide real-world evidence that the basic social rule works when respected 100%. Government does not provide these services through taxes, nor does it control them through regulations.²

A good example is literature. Books, magazines, newspapers, etc. are provided, not by government taxes or regulations, but competitively. People decide for themselves what and how much to read. An unimaginably wide variety of literature is available to all people. Second hand bookstores make inexpensive literature available even to those with lower incomes. Notice that by expecting the basic rule even of government, no social problems exist in the area of literature: no "crisis in the literature industry", no shortages, etc. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine the strife that would occur if government used taxes to write our literature, or regulations to control it, or even made private literature illegal. One only needs to look at those countries which control the press to see the problems that emerge when unprovoked force through government is tolerated.

Another area of life that honors the basic rule 100% is printing. Taxes do not support the printing industry, nor does regulation control it. People and groups fully decide for themselves the degree and quality of printing services they need, from simple copy machine services to fax services to print shop services. These services are offered at many price ranges, serving people at all levels of income. An abundance of businesses offer these services, so no shortage exists. Once again, we never hear of a "crisis" in the printing industry. Which makes sense, since there is no unprovoked force involved. However, it is easy to imagine the problems if printing were controlled by government.

Many others products and services could also be used as examples: furniture, computer equipment, stereos, TV's, and other electronic equipment; household appliances; water softening and filtering services; trade schools; fitness centers; competitive sports, music and other entertainment; landscaping, moving companies; catering; florists; dry cleaners; package delivery; office supplies; hardware; auto parts; paint; cooking utensils; draperies; light bulbs; jewelry; luggage; carpeting and other floor coverings, and so on. In each case the product or service is available at many price levels, varieties and quality. Consequently, we see the best consumer protection imaginable: no crises and no shortages in the first place.³

But this does not mean these industries are unregulated; on the contrary, by operating within an open competitive environment they are subject to natural regulations; regulations that work because they do not use unprovoked force. Such protection comes from the incentive that the producers have to satisfy the consumer. Open competition means the consumer can go somewhere else the minute they become dissatisfied. A bad reputation can hurt big or small businesses alike.⁴ Even more consumer protection comes from third party certification, which helps insure product quality, report on safety, and even settle disputes when problems do arise.⁵

In a way, all these examples are comparable to ecological systems in nature. The best balance comes from not interfering with the system and letting natural corrections fix any problems that arise. Man naturally follows the basic rule (Part 1), and things get worse when unprovoked force interferes with this.⁶

In all the areas mentioned, notice the basic rule at work. No one is forced to pay taxes to provide society with these services; no regulations exist that control or limit access to them. And it is easy to imagine the problems we would have if the unprovoked force of government was used to run these industries.

Also notice that we never find ourselves in political arguments over the problems in any of these areas.⁷

 * * * * * *

The areas of life provided or controlled by the unprovoked force of government are those areas with the most serious social problems. Such problems include shortages, poor quality, monopoly prices, and sometimes even crime and corruption. This happens precisely because unprovoked force is involved.¹

Unfortunately, one does not have to look far to see examples of social problems. The problem of the poor is high on the list. Years ago the government did not use taxes for the poor; people and groups gave charitably on their own, and there was always help available to the disadvantaged. People naturally gave, willingly and generously.² Then government took over this area; now the poor are poorer and in higher numbers. And people tend to give less because they feel they were already forced to give through taxes. By allowing the government to break the basic social rule, we have created many victims, and things are very much worse.³

Another social problem is education. Years ago government did not use taxes to educate; people were responsible for education instead.⁴ They funded schools on their own, and wide varieties of education methods emerged. The disadvantaged were even educated.⁵ In the mid-19^th century, for example, America had literacy rates that would seem miraculous today.⁶ Then government took over the responsibility of education. Little needs to be said about how bad things have gotten. There is poor quality, limited choice, battles for control of schools, crime, drugs, and so on. By allowing government to break the basic social rule, we have created many victims, and things are very much worse.⁷

In the area of housing, government spends a great deal of tax money. And there are volumes of regulations. But again we find a great deal of strife: land and housing shortages (which aggravate the homeless problem), poor quality low-cost housing, and prices that remain out of reach to average people. By allowing government to break the basic social rule, things are much worse.⁸

Political arguments often brew over the insurance industry. This area of life is controlled by government regulation and again we see the strife that follows: poor service, higher prices, fraud, etc. By allowing government to break the basic social rule, things are much worse.⁹

The health industry suffers from some of the heaviest government controls of all, and is largely funded from taxes. The problems here can fill pages and pages. But the common thread is the same. By allowing government to break the basic social rule, we have created many victims, and things are much worse.¹⁰

The public roads are provided by government through taxes. Here we find traffic, poor quality, and virtually no innovation. By allowing government to break the basic social rule, things are much worse.¹¹

The post office is a government monopoly; government regulation makes it a crime to offer postal service in an open competitive environment.¹² Here we find poor service and no innovation. By allowing government to break the basic social rule, things are much worse.

Many other areas that are provided or controlled by government (through the use of unprovoked force) also produce similar problems, which inevitably work their way into political arguments: the environment, crime, public transportation, foreign relations, drugs, immigration, unemployment, product safety, the cable industry, and so on. The common thread is that we tolerate the breaking of the basic social rule to provide the service or solve the problems. By giving government the right to use unprovoked force, we shift the responsibility to someone else. Instead, when no group has such a right, the consumer is put back in control.¹³

* * * * * *

The realization that government uses unprovoked force can be uncomfortable. But this is alleviated by an objective study of the areas controlled by government, which always reveals better results in an open competitive environment.¹ This practical evidence supports the judgment that unprovoked is always wrong, even when used by government.²

Embracing the basic social rule 100% is generally a difficult step. It is comparable to the experience of a person who grows up in a society that condones slavery. If he is an unusually objective person he may condemn slavery outright; but if he is more typical, he would accept the institution without question. He is uncomfortable scrutinizing slavery because the institution goes back to the earliest of times. He believes what others have taught him: slavery is good and necessary. But if he is determined to be objective, his reflection and observation convince him that slavery is wrong. He realizes it makes victims out of human beings, irrespective of any possible good it may do for other people.

Similarly, casting an objective eye at the institution of government requires the realization that government operates by using unprovoked force. For some people this is a clear-cut issue. They perceive coercion as wrong, regardless of who does it or who it claims to benefit. They embrace the basic social rule 100%.

For most, however, such scrutiny is uncomfortable. On the one hand, as human beings we feel it is always wrong to use unprovoked force, without exception. Yet the nagging feeling is that governments may have to do it, whether we like it or not, in order to get the products or services we need.

The person who is serious about confronting this problem often follows several steps. First, they wonder how a particular service that government provides would be handled if it was not allowed regulate it or force people to pay taxes for it. Their study of both the real world and economic theory (research is abundant in both areas) demonstrates that things work out far better in the open competitive environment. They decide government should not be involved in this area because open competition does a better job.³

They move on to another area of life provided or regulated by government through unprovoked force. They find, again, that extensive research has already been done in that area; they discover that in an environment open to competition, things work out much better, as in the previous area they explored. They are again satisfied that government should not have the right to tax or regulate this area because things are much worse when it does.⁴

As the person explores each area controlled by government, their studies reveal the same results. That the area has already been researched extensively. That an open competitive environment would (and often already has) solve the real-life problems that have traditionally plagued the area, replacing the problems with abundance and stability (see Part 11).

After exploring many issues and seeing consistent results, they come to realize that even if they have not personally researched a particular issue, the pattern would still apply. In any area of life where government is allowed to use unprovoked force, things get worse. While the competitive environment produces solutions, not problems.⁵

When enough evidence has been seen, a person tends to reach a point where their focus shifts from the practical to the moral. Like the person convinced of the wrongness of slavery, they realize government is wrong when it taxes or regulates.

From then on, all their political discussions are approached differently. When a proposed solution to a problem requires that government tax or regulate, they immediately defer to the basic rule.⁶ They know the proposal, at the outset, requires unprovoked force against others. Such a proposal is unacceptable on moral grounds because it would create victims. The good intentions of the proposal would not change this. They also realize that unintended problems result from taxes and regulations, because these extensive uses of unprovoked force produce negative effects that are magnified.⁷ Without such unprovoked force, then either the original problem would never emerge in the first place, or would have been much less severe.⁸

* * * * * *

This section will present a few of the political topics often discussed. They are typical because we find ourselves talking about them year after year, and yet the problems never seem to go away (and often get worse). In each case the basic social rule is used to approach the problem. We observe that taxes and/or regulations (which are unprovoked force) are used to support the product or service, but the common sense of the basic rule tells us it is wrong to use unprovoked force to get what we want. The strife in these areas is the result. Replacing unprovoked force with an open competitive environment then allows real solutions to emerge.

EDUCATION¹

Government has almost total control of education by means of taxes and regulations, which is unprovoked force. It is wrong to use unprovoked force against others to get the things we want. And this also explains why there are so many problems. However, if education were available competitively, parents would be able to decide for themselves the quality and quantity of education for their children. And those with lower incomes would have far more choices and better education than exist today.

Government runs mail delivery and makes it a crime for anyone else to do it. Taxes support the post office to make up their annual losses. It is wrong to use unprovoked force against others to get the things we want. And this also explains why there are so many problems. Instead, providing mail delivery in a competitive environment allows people to decide for themselves which delivery service to use. This already works well in the package delivery industry.

HOUSING²

Here we see government heavily involved. It regulates housing by controlling land use, building density, building standards, and so on. And it spends tax money extensively in this industry. But it is wrong to use unprovoked force against others to get the things we want. This also explains why there are so many problems. Instead, an open competitive environment in housing puts the consumers in control. Housing then becomes widely available at various prices, sizes and quality.

HEALTH CARE³

Government regulations control who practices medicine, what kind of medicine is practiced, medical insurance, etc. And tax money is used throughout the medical industry. But it is wrong to use unprovoked force against others to get the things we want. This also explains why there are so many problems. On the other hand, if health care were available in an open competitive environment without unprovoked force, consumers would be fully in control over its quality and quantity. The poor would also have far greater choices than they have now.

WELFARE⁴

Taxes are used for all welfare programs; there are also extensive regulations in other areas that make it very difficult for the poor to get their first start. But it is wrong to use unprovoked force against others to get the things we want. And this also explains why there are so many problems. Instead, allowing people and charities to govern their own generosity improves the quality of care received by the poor. It allows people to devise innovative ideas to help pull others out of poverty. And it puts no obstacles in the way of any person who is trying to get their first start.⁵

The same analysis can be used when discussing any topic. A great deal of literature uses this approach (though in more appropriate detail) with subjects such as crime⁶, the environment⁷, taxes and its effect on the economy⁸, foreign policy⁹, drugs¹⁰, third world poverty¹¹, civil rights & discrimination¹², big business¹³, the law¹⁴, the banking system¹⁵, defense¹⁶, and distribution of wealth.¹⁷

All provide specific real-world answers to how essential products and services are provided without unprovoked force. Books that present a broad overview of these subjects are also available.¹⁸ Numerous bookstores specialize in this literature; there are also magazines, research institutes and foundations, network organizations, etc.¹⁹

* * * * * *

 Back to contents page