I believe the role of government in society is the number one issue facing Americans today.  There is great confusion among the citizens, politicians, and media as to the role of government in society.  Many people blur the line between society and government, and some even speak in ways that suggest that the government and society are one and the same.  They are not.  Society is choice and government is force.  This confusion in terms has led the nation down a dangerous path which will ultimately result in government’s destruction of society.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

In order to truly examine where we are today as a nation, we need to go back and examine the rights of the individual, what limits individuals have when interacting with one another, and how and why society and government were established in the first place.

The Origin of Rights

Existence is a gift.  The miracle of existence has placed the race of man on planet Earth.  The first gift given to man was his physical existence or life.  Within his physical being, man was also given a miraculous mind capable of reason that drives him to take action in his life.  The liberty to take action is what allows man to continue his existence and pursue his own destiny.

The Earth is a marvelous planet of nature’s resources, without which the human race would perish.  In his action, man must labor with the physical objects, or property, of this Earth in order to sustain life.  Life, liberty, and property are all connected to man’s existence.  No one of these gifts can fully exist and flourish without the other two.  However, for the sake of clarity, I will attempt here to define these rights separately.

The right to life is the right to exist and care for your physical being.  The right to liberty is the right to freedom of action.  The right to property is the right to own, use, and develop physical objects on this Earth.

These natural rights to life, liberty, and property are not granted by government, they are part of the miracle of existence.  Governments were created by mankind in order to protect these rights.

In the exercise of his natural and unalienable rights, man will pursue a course consistent with his existence and his nature.

The Nature of Man

All humans will take action in the pursuit of happiness.

In the pursuit of happiness, individuals have different goals.  Some people may pursue wealth and material possessions, some may pursue a strong family bond, and others retreat to the solitude of a monastery for quiet reflection.   Whatever the goal, each individual will pursue a course which he believes will bring him happiness.

People do employ different means in order to attain their goals.  If a farmer is worried about a bad crop in the months to come, his education, experience, and faith will inform what action he takes.  The farmer may conduct rigorous scientific tests in order to employ the best fertilizer available, he may say a prayer, or he may take a goat and sacrifice it at the top of the highest mountain.  Different people will employ different means; however they are all taking action to achieve their desired ends.

People do make mistakes and many times regret certain decisions.  A wealthy man may regret the friends he has lost in his pursuit of wealth, a mother of seven may feel stress over paying for the education of so many children, and a monk may miss his family, however at the moment of decision, all people will take the action that they believe will bring them happiness.  If later it turns out they were wrong or only half right in their decisions, they will again choose to take action in the pursuit of happiness.

In the pursuit of happiness, individuals will cross paths with other individuals pursuing their happiness.  What then guides the interaction of the two?

The Power and Limit of Power of the Individual

The only limitation is that in the exercise of his individual rights, man may not encroach on the basic individual rights of others.  If each individual on Earth has the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, then each individual on Earth has the right to protect these rights.  Man has a right to life, but if someone tries to murder or hurt him, he has the right to defend himself with force if necessary.  He has the right to liberty, and if another man tries to enslave him, he has the right to defend his freedom.  Man has the right to own private property, and if another man tries to steal or destroy what he has worked for, he has the right to defend his property.

All men are free, restricted only by all other men’s equal right to also be free.
 
Simply put, an individual has the right to be free to do whatever he wants as long as he does not murder, hurt, or enslave another individual or steal or destroy property.  An individual has the right to use force against another individual only if his life, liberty, or property are being attacked.  No other use of force is justified.

The Origins of Society and Government

Government is individuals organizing their use of force.  Let us imagine a small civilization just starting out.  A band of people struggling for survival in the cruel wilderness; through their own strength, wits, and perseverance carve a life out for themselves and their families.  These people work and trade with others for their mutual benefit.  When tough or dangerous times arise they turn to each other and find in their moments of misery a bond of kinship.  They assist one another when food is short, when disease arrives, or when severe weather threatens to destroy that for which they have worked.  These people choose to willingly give assistance to others in their moments of need.  This is society.

However mankind is not perfect.  Although every person knows that murder, enslavement, and theft are wrong, man is a creature of reason, but also of passion. With passion come feelings of jealously, laziness, and greed.  In these moments of passion an individual is driven to take an action against his fellow man.  Then the people of society must join together out of a different necessity.  Instead of being bound by cooperation, love, or compassion they are bound by the need to defend themselves and in doing punish or fight.  The people realize that if they are to survive as a society they must establish a system where murder, assault, and theft are not tolerated.  So the people select an individual or individuals to fight or punish anyone who attacks the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.  This is government.

In society we find our bonds of kinship and in government we find our bonds of restraint and control.  Government is a negative force.

The Power and Limit of Power of the Government

The purpose of government is to defend the individual’s natural rights.  If we as individuals have the right to defend our life, liberty, and property with force then we also have the right to designate a group of individuals to defend those natural rights with force.  This group is the government.  But if individuals have the right to designate any group to the defense of rights then why have any government at all?

If a thief enters an individual’s home and attempts to murder the owner, the owner has a right to self defense and may take independent action.  However, if the thief kills the individual’s child in the process of the robbery and gets away, independent action can be very dangerous.  If the owner sees the thief three days later in a public place and kills him, the owner of the house appears to those around him to be committing an act of murder.  The thief may indeed deserve death, but allowing any individual or group of individuals to take independent action results in vigilante killings that tear society apart.  So, the people of society designate that government holds a single monopoly over the use of retaliatory force.

The government is society’s instrument of retaliatory force.

 If any individual commits an act of murder, enslavement, assault, or theft the government has the right and the duty to stop them.   In order to stop those individuals from continuing to commit acts of murder, assault, enslavement, or theft we have empowered the government to use force to stop them.  This is the service government provides.  The difference between government and all other services is the use of retaliatory force.  The government is the only organization authorized by society to use retaliatory force in the execution of its job.  The power of government may justly be used only in an act that protects life, liberty, or property.  If the government is used in any other way, force is being used in an unjust manner.  If, as individuals we have no right to murder, enslave, or steal; then we have no just power to authorize men acting on our behalf the right to murder, enslave, or steal either.

The only freedom the government has the right to take is the freedom to murder, assault, or enslave other individuals and the freedom to steal or destroy property.  Any other denial of freedom by the government is unjust.

The Purpose of Taxes

Defending the life, liberty, and property of all people in a given society requires labor and resources.  The individuals of society recognize the importance of protecting life, liberty, and property and provide the labor and resources necessary to support government.  An individual either provides his direct time and labor or the necessary resources in order to defend the society.  These resources are referred to as taxes.  Since the government is sworn to protect all individuals in the society, all individuals living within the society must pay taxes.  Any individual living within the society who refuses to pay taxes will be compelled to pay or forced to leave.  Taxes are collected with the sole intent of funding the protection of life, liberty, and property. 

The Society of Liberty and Justice for All

If all individuals were free to take action in the pursuit of their own happiness, confined only by the equal rights of others, the society would be blessed with unlimited progress and an increased quality of life for all individuals.  Problems would arise within the society, where certain individuals or groups would encroach on the rights of others.  At this point, the government would respond, ensuring the life, liberty, and property of all individuals is protected and justice is done.  The evolution of government, unfortunately, has not taken this path.  The power of government, voted for by the people, has increased its control and use of force on much more than the protection of life, liberty, and property and has become the very thief that it once swore to fight against.

The Misuse of Government

As our society grows so must our government for we have more lives and property to protect. This is the natural course of events.  As we grow and face problems with greater complexity, the fundamental nature of society and government do not change.  Society is still based on choice and government on force.  Government is still society’s sole instrument of retaliatory force and can only be used justly in the defense of life, liberty, and property.  Let us now examine the multiple ways that government has been misused in modern society.

Government Funded Social Programs

All individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property; therefore no one has the right to murder, enslave, or steal from another individual.  The power that we have bestowed upon our government is the right and the duty to use force to protect those unalienable rights.  There are people that propose it is also government’s right and duty to provide additional services to society.  They believe that government should fund these social programs with taxes.  The idea that government should sponsor social programs falls in the category of socialism.  Most countries are not completely socialist, but merely have elements of socialism within their government.  I do not wish to examine the multitude of emotional propaganda created over the years concerning socialism; I merely wish to examine one fundamental fact:

Using tax money to pay for social programs opens the society up to numerous moral and economic contradictions which disregard an individual’s right to liberty and property.

Before I continue I wish to be clear that I am not speaking out against social programs.  Libraries, schools, and health care are all outstanding services that assist and encourage society to flourish and grow.  I wish to draw issue with the current method by which we fund these social programs.

Let us look at a specific example.  Suppose that I want a good library in my town.  In a free society I have many options at my disposal to accomplish this.  I could go to my neighbors and plead my case and encourage them to build the library with me.  If I make a good case and my neighbors agree with me, we may all pitch in to donate the resources to build the library. However, in a free society my neighbors also have the choice to disagree with me and not fund the library.  In a free society I also might buy the land, build the library myself and charge a fee for its use.  Individuals who want to use the library may choose to and pay the fee.  A third viable option is a combination of the two, where I build or purchase the actual building that houses the library but all the resources inside are donated.  In this manner the fee for a library card only has to cover the maintenance of the actual building.  This all can happen free of government involvement.

Let us look at the same scenario where I use force to build the library.  I walk to my neighbors and under threat of force, demand money to build the library.  There are obvious problems with this scenario, but to be specific no one individual has the right to make choices in how or where another individual spends his money.  This disregards the unalienable right to own private property.

Let us say that I have made a very good case for the library and many people agree that it would improve their lives and the quality of life of the town.  Out of the one hundred people I talk to, sixty of them agree with me.  Forty however disagree and see no need for a library.  In a free society those sixty individuals may invest money to buy the land and build the library.  If a fee is charged for the use of the library they may divide it in order to return to them the money they invested.  However, the sixty people do not have a right to force the forty people to pay for the library.  Any use of force in this instant is in direct contradiction to the unalienable right of property.

The Legalized Theft of Property

In a modern society we have another tool to ensure the construction of our new library:  The government.  The sixty people who very much want the library decide that it is too expensive to pay for by themselves.  They need the money of all one hundred individuals.  The sixty people propose a law or a bill whereby the building of the library would simply be added to the budget of the government.  The sixty people demand a vote on the bill, the sixty individuals vote in favor and the forty individuals vote against, so the bill is passed into law.  However, with the addition of the new bill to build a library, the taxes no longer support exclusively the protection of life, liberty, and property.  The government is using force to collect money to build a library.  This is theft.  Because there was a vote it was made legal and thereby the society now has legalized the theft of property.

Some may argue that the United States Government does not use force in order to fund social programs.  However, if an individual in the United States today refuses to pay all or a portion of his taxes, they will receive notices, fines, warnings, and eventually armed men will come to their home and drag them to jail.  The United States Government uses force and the threat of force to fund social programs.  This is legalized theft.

The government was established in order to protect the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property; but in forcibly taking money in the form of taxes to build a library, the government has overstepped the boundary of its original mandate and is, in fact committing the act of theft it has sworn to fight against.  If I as an individual have no right to tell another individual how and where he should spend his money than any group of individuals acting on my behalf also does not have that right.

Once the government has the authority to steal with the majority’s approval, there is no limit to what government can or cannot take from its citizens, and the society starts down the path that ends in total socialism.  The spending begins with libraries, hospitals, and schools but moves onto unrestrained social spending.  The money is seized from all and given only to those whom the politicians see as worthy and deserving.  When one political party is in power the business owners, inventors, and bankers are favored.  When another political party is in power the laborers, artists, and welfare recipients are favored.  The pendulum swings back and forth and with each swing more money is seized to pay for the favored groups.  Both political parties disregard an individual’s right to private property.  If the political parties continue down this path of seizing money to pay for favored groups, the end state is that no individual has a right to property and all money is seized from all individuals and distributed by the government.  The society has now arrived at total socialism.  A good historical example is the former USSR, which eventually collapsed under the strain of its own inefficiency and corruption.  

The true answer is that no group should be favored over another as no individual should be favored over another.  Each individual has the right to choose where and how he spends his money.  The government should protect the life, liberty, and property of all individuals regardless of race, economic class, or political connection.

Morals in Society

Freedom and a free society are based on the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property.  Without this foundation the strong would be free to murder, enslave, and steal from the weak and society would be doomed to eternal chaos and war.  The government defends the rights to life, liberty, and property by combating murder, assault and enslavement of individuals and the theft and destruction of property.  There are those who believe government should also enforce morals or religion on people.  The idea that a government has the authority to regulate and enforce the morals of its citizens falls into the category of fascism.  I wish to be clear before I begin this examination that I am not condemning morals or religion.  Morals, values, and faith are integral to an individual’s development and existence.  However, an individual is not born into this world with morals or religion.  These are things which must be taken on by individual choice.  The choice to live by certain moral codes, values, or religious beliefs is voluntary and a choice that each individual must make on their own.  I here wish to merely point out one fundamental fact:

When morals or religion are pushed on an individual by the use of force the unalienable right to liberty is being usurped.

Let us say a friend of mine is in love with and proposes to a woman who I believe, for moral reasons, is not a good person.  I may believe she is unfaithful, a gold digger, or simply wrong for my friend.  In a free society I have the right to tell my friend what I think.  I can make my case and attempt to convince my friend the choice of this woman is wrong.  My friend may listen to my pleas or ignore them.  In a free society every individual has the right to make his own decisions as long as he is not encroaching on the life, liberty, or property of another individual.  Let us imagine the same scenario where I use force to influence my friend.  I go to my friend and this woman and I threaten them with physical violence if they marry one another.  Many problems arise in this situation, but to speak specifically, no individual has the right to force another individual into life decisions.  All individuals have the right to live their own lives and make their own choices.

Perhaps many people agree with me, that this woman is not right for our friend.  In a free society they all have the right to encourage our friend to rethink the decision.  My friend may agree or disagree, however the group of friends and family do not have the right to threaten use of force in order to prevent the marriage.  The couple has the unalienable right to liberty.

The Legalized Theft of Liberty

These friends and family have another tool in modern society in order to force their choice upon their friend:  The government.  Many people do not understand why so many others are making poor decisions in marriage, so they conclude that these individuals are not capable of making their own decisions in life.  These people propose a bill that all individuals must meet certain criteria in order to be married.  The bill sets the required guidelines based on the majority’s belief of what constitutes a proper marriage.  My friend is now required to ask permission from the government for a license to marry.  My friend’s request for marriage is denied because my friend is a woman and her chosen partner is also a woman.  The majority of people choose to marry members of the opposite sex so anyone in the minority must be wrong.  If the couple decides to ignore the law and marry anyway, any individual or organization that marries them is penalized in fines or jail time.  Denying the individual the right to choose their own spouse is a theft of liberty.  However, because there was a vote and it was passed into law it is legal.  The society now has legalized the theft of liberty.

This is not to say that private organizations or churches cannot promote their own morality within society.  People choose to join religious institutions that abide by certain moral codes and part of that code might deal with marriage.  In a free society churches may promote their own value system and allow individuals the choice to join or not join.  Individuals do not have the same choice when it comes to government and law.  If an individual chooses to ignore the government and its laws they risk fines and jail time.

In a free society the government has been empowered to defend the liberty of all individuals.  Using the power of government to restrict the choice of marriage is in direct contradiction to a free society and the unalienable right to liberty.  If I as an individual do not have the right to use force to prevent my friend from marriage, then any group acting on my behalf also does not have that right.

Once it has been established that the government has the right to tell individuals who they can and cannot marry, the door is open to more controls.  It may begin by defining marriage between a man and a woman, but at the majority’s whim that definition could narrow to a man and a woman of the same race, or a man and a woman of the same religion. There is no limit to the control because it has been established that the belief of the majority is the only belief that will be allowed.

What has also been established is that small groups of people who make decisions contrary to the majority may have their life choices taken from them.  It includes the type of religion they practice, the type of sex they have, the employees they choose, and whatever else the majority might decide one day as being “moral.”   When one political party is in power, they try to control the person you marry and the type of sex you practice.  When another political party comes to power they implement hiring quotas for business owners and dictate what benefits employers must offer employees.  The pendulum swings back and forth, and with each swing more liberty is taken from the individual.  If the political parties continue down this path, the end state is that all actions taken by individuals will have moral implications that need to be regulated and controlled by the government.  The people now have a fascist society.  A modern example of this is the rule of the Nazi Party in Germany, who dictated to all businesses what their responsibilities were to society and sentenced over six million human beings to death because they practiced the wrong religion.

All of these acts are thefts of liberty.  To take a man’s liberty from him is to enslave him, so in truth these restrictions of liberty are incremental steps toward slavery, which ends when the political party in power makes all choices for all individuals.  The government was established in order to protect the individual’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property; but in restricting liberty in the form of enforcing morals on society, the government has overstepped the boundary of its original mandate and is, in fact committing the very act of enslavement it has sworn to fight against.

The Protection of Life

Existence is a gift.  Individuals have the natural and unalienable right to life.  Part of this right is the right to treat and care for their own body in whatever manner they deem appropriate.  People care for their body in many different ways.  Some people choose certain types of food, others choose a combination of food and vitamin supplements, and other people will take certain kinds of medication when they are ill.  Most people search out advice from professionals and others believe they are competent enough to make health decisions without the aid of a specialist.  Whatever people choose, in a free society they have the freedom to make choices concerning their own bodies.  There are some individuals who propose government should regulate how people treat their own bodies.  The majority of these proposals are intended to keep people safe and healthy.  I will not argue the fact that these proposals are well intentioned, I believe they are, however, dictating to another human being how they are to treat their own body disregards the unalienable right to life.

Let us look at a specific example.  A friend of mine has come across a vegetable that he believes is very healthy and good for mankind.  If ingested it reduces stress, blood pressure, and combats certain health concerns related to the aging process.  He decides to label his discovery, “Super Veggie.”  My friend goes about marketing his “Super Veggie” to me and many of his other friends.  He shows us all the wonderful uses for this plant.  Some of my friends see the benefits of the vegetable and decide to grow and use it.  However I see some trouble with this new discovery.  I see that those who ingest the vegetable do seem more relaxed and less stressed about life, but they also seem apathetic.  I do not like this side effect and decide not to include the vegetable in my diet.  My friend is very upset with me and he urges me to try it.  In a free society he is free to make his case and convince me that he is right.  In a free society I have the freedom to eat or not eat the vegetable.  This all can happen without government intervention.  Let us look at the scenario where force is involved.  My friend comes to me and uses physical force and coercion to get me to eat the vegetable.  In forcing a substance that I believe is unhealthy into my body; my friend is encroaching on my right to life.  He does not have the right to dictate to me what I can and cannot put into my body, anymore than I have a right to do the same to him.

Let us suppose that many people try the vegetable and agree that it is a truly miraculous product.  In my town of one hundred people, eighty are using this new “Super Veggie.”  Twenty people still do not like the product’s side effects and choose not to use it.  All this is acceptable in a free society.  Let us look at the situation when force is used.  The eighty people go to the twenty and under threat of violence force them to eat the vegetable.  There are many problems in this scenario; specifically the majority has no right to force its will on the minority.  By forcing the twenty people to consume a product they believe to be unhealthy, the eighty people are encroaching on the others right to life.  Being in the majority does not give any individual or group of individuals the right to force their will on another.

The Legalized Assault on Life

When begging and pleading fail, society has one final way to force their control upon individuals:  The government.  The eighty people decide that instead of using direct force on the twenty people, they will use government force.  The eighty people write a bill on public health.  It is stated in the bill the vegetable is good for all members of society and anyone not eating it is ignorant.  The bill requires that all individuals using any public facility to include libraries, hospitals, and schools are required to have a minimum dose of this vegetable.  Any parent not feeding the vegetable to their children will be subject to jail time.  Because eighty people are in favor and twenty people are against, the bill is passed into law, so the vegetable is now a mandatory health food.  Government appointed doctors are now used to verify that all individuals have had their required minimum dosage of the “Super Veggie.”  However we have seen that no individual has the right to force another to consume any product against their will, so the government acting on behalf of the individuals in society does not have that authority either.  By enforcing the consumption of this new vegetable the government has overstepped its bounds and has become the attacker of life it has sworn to fight against.

Some may argue that government officials in the United States do not use force when telling people what they must put into their body.  However, public and private schools are required by law only to accept students with the government mandated inoculations.  Also, in 2009, a Minnesota judge ruled, under penalty of jail and loss of custody, that the mother of a thirteen year old boy must submit him to chemotherapy treatments after the boy had already opted for an alternative course of treatment.  The mother supported her son, but the judge ruled that he, not the boy or his mother, knew what was in the best interest of the child.

When faced with any law concerning what substances a person should or should not put into his body, the question is not whether the substance is safe or not, the question is, “Does the majority have a right to decide what all individuals put into their bodies?”  A person that believes marijuana should be illegal also must recognize the nature of the law.  Remember that government is an instrument of force.  Once the government can decide what an individual cannot put into their body, the government then has the power to say what an individual must put into their body.  When public opinion shifts; what is illegal one day could be mandatory the next.  The real answer is that every individual has the right to care for their own body in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

There are many who argue that drug users pose a threat to society.  While I certainly understand this argument, it is illogical when examined in depth.  When a person turns to crime in the form of encroaching on another’s rights, whether the reason is drugs, poverty, or jealousy, it is the duty of the government to respond.  Many point to drug crime in the United States as a valid reason for not legalizing certain drugs.  The prohibition of alcohol in the United States provides a very clear example of why this argument is flawed.  During Prohibition in the United States, the alcohol business was run by organized crime.  Corruption and violence as a result of the black market for alcohol ran rampant in the 1920s.  The repeal of the law allowed honest businessman to once again run the market for alcohol.  While the idea of marijuana or cocaine being sold alongside hard liquor in the stores is distasteful to many individuals, the simple truth is that it would take the drug market out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of businessmen.

This is not to say that the health concerns of alcohol and drugs are not real.  Alcoholism and drug addiction are devastating states of being for the individual and the friends and family of the individual.  However, combating alcoholism and drug addiction are moral issues that must be confronted by individual choice.  Friends and family can and should be a part of confronting these issues, but any use of force is counterproductive.  The act of making a moral decision must be done by choice; therefore it is outside the realm of government.

If an individual encroaches on another’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, or property, whether the cause be drugs, greed, or jealousy, the government should respond.  If there is no encroachment upon another, the government should have no authority to take action.

Government Destruction of Society

Society is groups of individuals working in mutual cooperation.  Society has only progressed because individuals have chosen to work together in teams to accomplish great things.  Society is characterized by choice.  Government was created to serve and protect the society.  It serves society by protecting the life, liberty, and property of all individuals in the society.  Government is characterized by force.  When government is used to force mutual cooperation on a society it is destroying the right of the individual to choose.  Government control of property, morals, or physical being are all different paths that lead to the same destination:  Government’s total control of the individual.  Since government is based on force and society on choice, any expansion of government beyond the defense of life, liberty, and property does so only at the expense of individual choice.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Voting

When voting, an individual must be keenly aware of the nature of government.  Government is force, and force is only used justly when defending life, liberty, and property.  In every issue that requires a vote the same question must be asked, “Does an individual have the right to use force in this scenario?”  If the answer is yes, then the government has a duty to respond.  If the answer is no, then the government has no right to respond.

Let us look at two specific examples.  If I am being mugged in the street, do I have the right to use force on my mugger?  I am defending my life and my property so I do have the right to use force and therefore the government also has the right and the duty to respond.  If a potential employer offers me $10 an hour for a particular job but I believe I should be paid $15 an hour, do I have the right to use force to secure the $15 an hour I believe I am entitled?  Neither my life, liberty, nor property are being attacked by my potential employer, so I have no right to use force and therefore the government has no duty or right to respond either.  If government does respond in this case, I am using the power of the government to steal from my potential employer.

In Conclusion

I wish to make clear that I am not a proponent of a weak government.  I want a strong government confined to its proper role.  I want professional, well paid police officers rigorously pursuing violent and dangerous criminals.  I want brilliant prosecutors and detectives rooting out fraud.  The proper role of government in America involves the elected representatives of the people as well as all the organizations at the local, state, and federal level that protect life, liberty, and property.  It is a difficult and complicated job that requires the total attention and devotion of our public officials.  If nothing else is remembered, remember that America was founded on the ideal of freedom and our government is sworn to protect that freedom.  They accomplish this by protecting our individual rights to life, liberty, and property.  Any deviation from this protection sets us on the path to the destruction of society.

When individuals deal with one another on an individual basis, the vast majority do indeed respect the other individual’s right to life, liberty, and property.  As we expand away from specific individuals and deal with society and government as a whole, people raise some valid concerns.  Our current government provides so many services deemed vital, such as roads, medical regulation, and education and many people wonder how and if a society could function without a government planned economy and moral code.  In Part II, I will show why a free society is not just the logical system, but also the system that encourages progress and an increased quality of life for all individuals.