The Great Game of Government™

Column by tzo.
Exclusive to STR
Imagine you are going to participate in one of those chess games in which actual people occupy each of the 64 stations on a large board. If you agree to play, and you are assigned the role of bishop, then you can move only diagonally. Furthermore, you can only move when and how far the player who controls the army of which you are a part decides. Those are the rules of the game.
Of course, as a participant in the game you aren’t really a bishop—you remain a human being. You would be quite delusional to actually confuse your own flesh-and-blood being with that of a large plastic figurine. You would also be quite delusional to believe that the battle represented by the chess game was an actual raging melee between human beings. No, it is merely a game that abstractly represents a tiny slice of reality: A game of war.
Your participation in the chess game is a small portion of your actual life, and when you are not taking part in the chess game, you have no nonsensical restrictions upon you that compel you to walk diagonally only, and only upon command.
But now consider The Great Game of Government.™ Everyone plays! Select a colorful plastic token to represent yourself! You will be assigned a government at the start, but you may change governments at any time! Restrictions apply! Now you are a Citizen in the Great Game of Government! Yay!
A very interesting phenomenon generally manifests itself here. Unlike in the chess game, the human participants in The Great Game of Government confuse themselves with the artificial game pieces. They actually believe they are little Citizen tokens made of plastic, inextricably tied to the rules of the game. The game becomes their entire life—they are immersed in it 24/7. They are like play-actors who believe the stage production is reality. They live as plastic Citizens, not as flesh-and-blood human beings.
This is truly bizarre behavior, is it not?
A Citizen has no human rights. A Citizen is not a sovereign human being. A Citizen is like a bishop in a game of chess, which is a game that abstracts the war portion of reality. But The Great Game of Government abstracts all of reality, not just one tiny slice. Most human beings believe they have no choice but to play, and they quickly lose their way and become, in their minds, actual Citizens.
And Citizen is a lowly station in The Great Game of Government. The imaginary collective entity that is labeled The People is sovereign, while individual Citizens are not. The People enjoy superhuman rights that they can delegate to The Officeholders. The Officeholders create and enforce the rules of The Great Game of Government as it goes along, giving them a permanent advantage over The People.
At times, The Citizens urge The People to get tough and stop letting The Officeholders push The Citizen around. After all, The People are sovereign, just like The Officeholders. But The People gave The Officeholders the power to forge the rules of the game even as it is in progress. The Officeholders have declared that they have control of The Guns and that The Citizens better keep in line or else it may Get Ugly. This is perfectly acceptable behavior, since whatever rule they make is valid via the superhuman powers delegated to them by The People.
And so on.
Well, what a stupid fecking game. I quit. I am a human being, not a Citizen. I was born to be sovereign upon the face of the Earth, and I do not relinquish this inalienable status (paradox noted) in order to participate in a rigged shell game. I am not destined to Forever Remain Only On The Black Squares. The Great Game of Government is not part of my life. I am very sorry that there are many deluded people who cannot understand this—who believe they are actually plastic figurines and not flesh-and-blood human beings—who assume I am playing the game with them because they cannot distinguish that it is merely a game and that an entire reality exists outside of the game. I exist in reality, and the rules of reality do not correspond with that of The Great Game of Government.
The game is not reality, but it is superimposed over it like a giant 1:1 scale paper map. The Citizens do not walk the Earth as human beings, they slide around on the superimposed paper map as plastic tokens, their actions restricted by the ever-changing rules of the game.
Well, to all you delusional Dungeons and Dragons role-playing types who have lost their grip and can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality, just stay out of my way: I'm not playing with you.
Of course the masses will want to force me to play anyway. But then it's not really a game anymore, is it? Can you tell the difference?

Your rating: None Average: 7.8 (4 votes)
tzo's picture
Columnist tzo
Columns on STR: 64

tzo now lives in your head.


Samarami's picture

Excellent analogy, tzo.

First you declare yourself sovereign. That releases you from the game.

Does that mean agents of state are no longer pains in the ass? No it doesn't. All bandits and gangsters are pains in the ass:

But now you can take the same measures to avoid them that you take to avoid all the other thieves, robbers and shysters who beset you.

You are no longer playing the game.

But beware of the political robbers. With the ordinary holdup artist you have an advantage (if you're careless enough that he gets the drop on you): he knows what he is. He believes he is a robber. Once he gets your billfold and/or your watch or your ring, he goes away and leaves you alone. He does not wish to play further games with you.

Not so with the political sharper. He is actually deluded into believing he is doing you a "great service". He would like you to speak in terms of "our country", "our leaders", "our president" -- "our forefathers". Thus he is far more virulent than all the good criminals lurking in dark alleys or along the waterfront.

Beware the politico.


Suverans2's picture

Welcome back Sam,

What a great word, sharper, "a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud" [WordNet], since that is what the rules of "The Great Game of Government" are based on.

    "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." [Emphasis added]
Samarami's picture


"...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make

merchandise of you..."

King James usually sez it best.


Suverans2's picture

G'day tzo,

    "The game is not reality, but it is superimposed over it like a giant 1:1 scale paper map."


Trouble is we have been brainwashed since nativity to only see the "superimposed...giant 1:1 scale paper map", and most individuals will never give any real mental effort toward peeling it away in order to see the "reality" layer. Without ever moving one's feet one can leave the artificial kingdoms[1] and enter into the natural kingdom.

    " not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

It's simple, but it isn't easy.

[1] KING'DOM, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction.] ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Suverans2's picture
    "Without ever moving one's feet one can leave the artificial kingdoms and enter into the natural kingdom."

This is why we have chosen individual secession, (as opposed to expatriation[1]), as the better answer. With expatriation one never leaves "The Great Game of Government"; one abandons or renounces one artificial kingdom only to become a member of another artificial kingdom instead of withdrawing[2] from the "stupid fecking game" altogether.

[1] Expatriation. The voluntary act of abandoning or renouncing one's country, and becoming the citizen or subject of another. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page576

[2] Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Ibid. page 1351 [Emphasis added]

Suverans2's picture

And for you "game pieces" that believe the artificial entity known as the United States Government "owns" the approximately two trillion, four hundred and twenty-five billion, six hundred million acres of land commonly miscalled "the United States", you would do well to remember Richard Belzar's famous line, "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap".

Suverans2's picture

Good day tzo,

Curious, what is the "paradox" in the below statement?

    "Well, what a stupid fecking game. I quit. I am a human being, not a Citizen. I was born to be sovereign upon the face of the Earth, and I do not relinquish this inalienable status (paradox noted) in order to participate in a rigged shell game."

I ask this because, according to the natural law, as I understand it, one can consent (express), or appear to consent (implied/tacit), to "relinquish" one's "inalienable status".

The reason our natural rights are called "inalienable" is because they cannot, rightfully, be taken by the so-called laws of men.

    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams

I don't see no stinking "paradox".

tzo's picture

Every definition of inalienable I find includes the concept of being "non-transferable." They cannot be voluntarily be given away. "Relinquishing inalienables" is indeed paradoxical by the definitions of the two words.

This means you always retain the highest claim upon inalienable rights. You can agree to pay 50% of your future labor/resources in exchange for citizenship, but it is not a valid contract because you can, at any time, decide to keep what you earn. No one else can ever have a higher claim on your life, liberty, and property as do you.

The citizen cedes his life, liberty, and property to the State, but of course, he really doesn't. He just doesn't realize that he really doesn't. He thinks the State owns him, but he really owns himself, so his actions are his own, and whatever he suffers from as a result of this error in judgment is self-inflicted. He has agreed, through ignorance of his own self, to make himself miserable. He has only himself to blame.

The individual who understands that the government is a thief who steals from him because he understands that he has the exclusive right to his own life, liberty, and property, may suffer the same deprivations as the citizen, but he is not doing it to himself. He can rightfully blame others for violating his human rights.

Just a subtle shift in the state of mind. May make no apparent difference in results obtained. But the difference between understanding that government is stealing and that government has just authority is everything. The false assumption that government has some kind of innate, just authority is the very consent that gives it life. Withdraw that support and it dies.

Flip one little switch between the ears of enough people, and the government lights go out. Sounds too simple, yet this is what de la Boétie wrote about more than half a millennium ago. He is quoted and cited often, yet perhaps the subtlety and sheer simplicity of his argument is not truly appreciated: Free your mind and the rest will follow.

"Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?"


Suverans2's picture

G'day tzo,

My God, a true "strike the root" reply!! And that Étienne de la Boétie quote gives me goosebumps!

A couple of things, though, my friend; first, regarding "inalienable rights". The question that begs to be answered is this, who would you "transfer" your natural rights to, since all men have them? ;)

    "...And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..."

A "tricky" phrase indeed, “Inalienable rights”; it is defined, not once, but twice, and in two entirely different ways, in Black’s 1991 Law Dictionary. On page 759 we find the one that pertains to civil or legal rights.

    Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g. freedom of speech or religion, due process, and equal protection of the laws. ...See Bill of rights

Notice that it did not say e.g. "the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property", as the New Hampshire Constitution properly denoted the natural rights.

    enjoy verb: have for one's benefit

Now, 764 pages later, on page 1523, we find a different definition; this one pertains to natural rights, the right to life, liberty and property (both natural and justly acquired).

    Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental.

In this context "abridge" means ...2. To lessen; to diminish... 3. To deprive; to cut off to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. (Source: Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language)

You cannot be "alienated", or "cut off", from them, which is why John Adams reportedly said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws...". You can only lose them with your own consent, express or implied, or by forfeiture.

And second, you wrote, "You can agree to pay 50% of your future labor/resources in exchange for citizenship, but it is not a valid contract because you can, at any time, decide to keep what you earn." In my opinion, for clarity, you should have added, "by withdrawing from membership in the [political] group and refusing to trade your natural rights for civil/political rights (member-only benefits/privileges)".

Tony Pivetta's picture

In discussing inalienable rights, one must take care to differentiate between what *ought to be* and what *is*. When John Adams says we have "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws," he means they *ought not to be* repealed or restrained. *Operationally*, however, they are routinely repealed and restrained. Armed thugs, whether freelance or on government-payroll, *do* take away our "inalienable" rights--to life, liberty, property, free speech, religion, etc.--by threatening or inflicting violence on those of us who try to exercise them.

Adams himself signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act, thereby repealing Americans' right to criticize their government in *sensory-sensual space-time*, as Robert Anton Wilson tagged the here-and-now. Americans may well have retained the right in some Platonic realm. The fact remains they risked great bodily injury up to and including death if they presumed to exercise that right under the territorial monopoly of force we call the Adams administration.

That's the paradox as I see it. What *is* conflicts with what *ought to be*. We can withdraw our consent to be governed. We can free our minds, recognizing the State for Rothbard's "band of criminals writ large" that it is. The insight in itself is worthwhile.

Nevertheless, if you evade its taxes or resist its edicts, the State may well sic its agents on you. You may get away with it. But the threat remains. You risk fine, imprisonment or worse. That's the reality.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Tony Pivetta,

*Operationally*, "citizens" voluntarily, (albeit ignorantly, in the vast majority of cases), trade their natural rights for protection.

    "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109 [Emphasis added]

But, for those of us who haven't, "Armed thugs, whether freelance or on government-payroll cannot" "take [our natural rights] away", they can only "trespass" upon them.

Next, you wrote, ""inalienable" rights--to life, liberty, property, free speech, religion, etc.". Might I point out that with the first three, no other itemization is necessary.

    Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment [sic] of government. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

To be more precise, this liberty is abridged when we submit ourselves, individually, to the dominion of the government.

And lastly, natural persons[1] do not "evade its taxes or resist its edicts"; as non-members they are "exempts"[2] (as we see in the above definition of natural liberty), notwithstanding they may have a difficult time convincing ignorant agents of the government of this fact. As tzo correctly stated, "...the masses will want to force me to play anyway. But then it's not really a game anymore, is it? Can you tell the difference?"

[1] PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it implies. … Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic.” 1 Bl. Comm. 123 ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's Dictionary of the Law, 1st Edition (c.1891)], pg. 892 [Emphasis added]

A "natural person" holds the highest rank in society, controlled only by jus naturale.

JUS NATURALE [The natural law]. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tay. Civil Law, 99. ~ A Law Dictionary (Black’s 2nd c.1910), pg. 804

[2] EXEMPTS. Persons who are not bound by law, but excused from the performance of duties imposed upon others. . ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (c.1856), page 1009

Tony Pivetta's picture

You seem to be arguing semantics, Suverans2. I did *not* trade in my natural rights for the State's protection (such as it is), but I find myself in the same position as those who did. If I assert my natural rights too enthusiastically by, say, refusing to pay my taxes, I face the same fate as those who refuse to pay but accept taxes as the price they pay for civilization. The State is no less likely to sic its agents on me for refusal to pay. In fact, it's more likely, insofar as the State lives in perpetual fear of mass resistance movements.

Do the State's armed thugs "take away" or merely "trespass" against my natural rights? I'll let the metaphysicians (and semanticists) decide that one. I agree with the metaphysicians that the State has no moral right to behave this way. In other words, the State ought not to inflict or threaten me with violence for pursuing my natural rights to life and property. But inflict and threaten it does, in early 21st century American sensory-sensual space-time.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Tony Pivetta,

Thanks for your reply.

If you are not a 14th Amendment citizen or a member (citizen) of one of the associations (States) that have submitted themselves to the dominion of the government, then I did NOT say that YOU traded your natural rights for government protection.

And, if you do not accept any "member-only" benefits/privileges, which includes protection, then you don't have to REFUSE to pay...because you won't be a won't even have a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (U.S.).

If you believe that the difference between "take away" and "trespass" is purely a metaphysical one, or a matter of semantics, that is certainly your prerogative.

Suverans2's picture

I tried to edit and add, "Hope you have a great day", but it triggered the spam filter.

Tony Pivetta's picture

Top of the day to you, Suverans2!

I am not aware of my citizenship in any 14th Amendment or States association. I did not say you said I had traded my natural rights for government protection.

I got my taxpayer identification number when I was 15. I had been informed by my high school counselor that a taxpayer ID would be required to land a job. Is that where I went wrong? Is that where I traded away my natural rights? I certainly did not intend to bargain away my rights. I just wanted to get a job.

As a 15 year-old, I had not attained the age of majority. May I use that fact as a defense against the State's claim that I bargained away my natural rights?

Irwin Schiff is in prison for tax evasion. He claimed the income tax amendment was not legitimately enacted. He claimed the income tax was voluntary even if it was legitimately enacted. He did not prevail.

I believe a similar fate awaits me if I adopt your line of defense. I'm certainly not willing to take that chance.

If you believe the difference between "take away" and "trespass" is not purely a metaphysical or semantic one, that is certainly your prerogative. I hope you have a great day, too.

Suverans2's picture

And, top o' the day to you too, Tony Pivetta,

Didn't you mean, "a similar fate awaits me if I adopt his [Irwin Schiff's] line of defense"? Quite frankly, I am familiar with little more than his name and that he was a tax protester, which, obviously, I am not. I think all "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" should pay their dues (income tax).

A 14th Amendment citizen is a United States citizen, and a United States citizen is a TAXPAYER with a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.

    Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Notice that it does NOT say, All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, [and] are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, the question that you need to answer correctly is, Why am I "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?", keeping in mind that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that it is not merely being " the United States" that makes one a "citizen of the United States".

That is a very important question to answer because, that same 14th Amendment, in it's so-called Due Process Clause, allows state and local governments to deprive persons[1] of life, liberty, or property (natural rights) with certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.

[1] "Scope and delineation of term [person] is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution affords PROTECTION since this Amendment expressly applies to "person"." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1142 [Emphasis added]

Notice that "this Amendment" does not simply apply to "person", but, rather, it "expressly applies to "person"".

Expressly. In an express manner; in direct or unmistakable terms; explicitly; definitely; directly. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill 336 Mo 17, 76 S.W.2d 685, 689. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 581

Why such strong legal language, inquiring minds should like to know?

Suverans2's picture

G'day Tony Pivetta,

You wrote: "I am not aware of my citizenship in any 14th Amendment or States association."

Were you just twisting what I wrote, to be 'humorous', or are you truly "not aware" that you are a U.S. citizen, (which is a citizen created by the 14th Amendment), and/or a citizen of the STATE OF MICHIGAN, (which is an association of "persons" that have "submitted themselves to the dominion" of the U.S. government)?

Samarami's picture

Tony: "...Irwin Schiff is in prison for tax evasion. He claimed the income tax amendment was not legitimately enacted. He claimed the income tax was voluntary even if it was legitimately enacted. He did not prevail..."

Irwin gave up his natural "rights" by making the egregious error that he could get "justice" in the white man's "court" system -- that if he obeyed the white man's "laws" (which he did), well...perhaps parasites of state would not play the government game any more. What naiveness. When the accuser and the judge draw their booty from the same kitty there is not a question as to how the "court" case will come out, now is there?

So Irwin Schiff is living out his life in the white man's rape cage as a martyr. I suppose I can rather respect him for that in a sense.

Tzo's analysis of state as a malicious game is accurate.


Suverans2's picture

G'day Sam,

You're right about that, my friend, I never, ever, voluntarily enter the white man's "court" system, because they do not "recognize" my law, just as I do not "recognize" their law. "I understand", means, to their so-called JUDGES, "I consent". And, I guaran-fricken-tee you, you don't "understand" their law, even if you think you do. (Not meaning you, personally, Sam.) Those who think that they do are in for a very rude awakening, sooner or later.

Quick definitions from Macmillan Dictionary (recognize)▸to accept the authority or status of someone or something

SSS's picture

Dear Sir,
I live in Indiana. Is there a group in my state i can get involved with. Please contact me at Thanks

Paul's picture

I don't have much use for this discussion of rights, or distinctions about whether they are surrendered or taken away. That's why I wrote this article: One always gets tied up in semantics and legal arguments, talking about them. To what end? It begins to resemble masturbation.

No, government is just a criminal gang, exactly as Rothbard said. As such, it is just another force of nature. There always will be things like lightning strikes, rattlesnakes, slippery ice, and criminal gangs. One simply does what one can to either avoid them or fight against them, as seems fitting. No need to get wrapped up complaining that courts don't follow constitutions and other such irritants. Of course they don't; they are a criminal gang!

We have to live inside of Nature; that is our fate. Might as well accept it as it is, and deal with it as we need to.

Suverans2's picture

" just another force of nature" ~ Paul Bonneau

You know, "a force of nature", like tornadoes, hurricanes, earth quakes, tsunamis, etc.

Be sure to read all the comments following that masturbatory article, and then draw your own conclusion as to whether we each have a "natural right", i.e. a "just claim"[1], to our life, liberty and justly acquired property. rational individuals, like Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, John Locke, James Otis, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, and too many others to list here, natural rights are self-evident.

[1] In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, under RIGHT, n. at positions 5, 6, 7 and 10 we find these two words, “Just claim”.

Claim. To demand as one's own or as one's right... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 247

Suverans2's picture

The prologue to The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible by Ken Schoolland

My philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.

A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles.

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.

You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.

Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical.

Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.

Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act - especially when it is easier to do nothing.

Suverans2's picture

Seems that Noah Webster wasn't the only one who knows that a "right" is a "just claim". From "Word Magic Translation Software" we find these:

just claim Noun

Plural: just claims

1. derecho, reclamación justa; Synonyms: right, individual right...

de·re·cho Masculine - Noun - Singular

Plural: derechos
Feminine: derecha
Plural and Feminine: derechas

1. right, individual right, just claim...

re·cla·ma·ción jus·ta Feminine - Noun - Singular

Plural: reclamaciones justas

1. just claim; Synonyms: derecho