Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

There’s a point being made that people who live in so-called shithole countries should stay and fix those countries instead of relocating to a better one. This is terrible advice for several reasons: 1) nobody has an obligation to make their country of origin better; 2) your highest priority should be the safety and prosperity of yourselves and your loved ones, and if that means immigrating, do it; 3) attempting to stay and fix a shithole country is statistically a fool’s errand, as it’s in incredibly difficult for a person to effect any meaningful change in the desired direction; and 4) some who are making this point are doing so as to not encourage foreigners to come to their country and exploit their public benefits, a challenging problem to be sure, but if it were truly a simple thing to stay and fix a shithole country, it would be just as simple for us First-Worlders to fix our public benefits problem. It’s a uniquely terrible advice giver to expect anyone to stay and suffer their shithole country and foolishly try to fix it. Nobody should suffer a shithole country. Come to the First World if you please, any way you can. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Editor’s Break 109 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: the effectiveness of state constitutions and the reason for an amendment process; how enforcing borders is central planning; his belief in paranormal mystery and the existence of UFOs; a somewhat better way to look at regrets about the past; how free societies would deal with brutal foreign political leaders via bounties; and more.

Listen to Editor’s Break 109 (24m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

The moment a group of people who call themselves “government” enforce their arbitrary border around their supposed jurisdiction is the moment they begin central planning who may live where and who may trade with who. Any libertarian versed in economics can tell you the likely disastrous effects of centrally planning the economic decisions of others. Among other problems is that which is described by Ludwig von Mises when he argued and showed that central planning intervention begets more intervention. The Welfare State is one such central planning intervention, and the problem of immigrants exploiting their new home’s Welfare State seemingly requires yet more central planning intervention. Should libertarians be cheerleading the central planning of arbitrary borders and Welfare State management? Or should libertarians be educating others on the disastrous and inhumane effects of central planning any economic decision made by other people, and calling for its abolition? If you’re going to be loud on policy as a libertarian, please for the love of your liberty do not pretend that your advocacy for central planning is anything less than giving your arsenal to the enemy and begging them to use it wisely. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Like their threat-forwarding cousins, those who attack ideas outside of the political status quo are another type of bootlicker. It’s been said that within any given population, 90% prefer the status quo, and 10% are the thinkers and innovators. This would be no less true for the politico-economic realm. Few people try to imagine ways that society could be truly better off than they are today. Even fewer are those who imagine better ways to do things that don’t involve politics. This minority of minorities puts their hopes and dreams into implementing new ideas to better satisfy people’s wants and needs, only to be attacked by government busybodies wielding red-tape guns. Those who ally with these violent busybodies against thinkers and innovators not only lick their boots, but gleefully eat the shit off the bottom, too. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Editor’s Break 108 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: violent radicalism and the religion of Islam; why people become NPCs (non-player characters), and how to avoid becoming one; the ins and and outs of on-demand food delivery and why you should maximize your earnings; and more. (Apologies for the audio quality. Still working on it.)

Listen to Editor’s Break 108 (40m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

I learned early on in my journey toward voluntaryism that “constitutional limits” were a temporary hurdle at best and totally invisible at worst in “chaining” down the state authority-expanding actions of opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats. It was obvious to me during my Constitutionalist phase that how these people should go about expanding their [supposed] authority was not via interpretation or re-interpretation of the Constitution (or straight up ignoring), but by amending the Constitution to say exactly what they wanted it to say. If an article, clause, or section of the Constitution or it’s later Amendments were less than perfectly clear, then the default position should be to protect life, liberty, and property, not to embolden and license the agendas of expansionist politicians and bureaucrats. There’s an amendment process for a reason. But alas, what use are strictures and limits to those who seek authority over other people to begin with? Humanity was conquered along time ago, and though the forms and rituals change throughout time, the facts do not: the people who call themselves “government” have assumed jurisdiction over other people arbitrarily and coercively, constitutions notwithstanding. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

It’s probably one of the most controversial feelings to hold, but I feel it must be said: there are few groups of people I hold as much pity for than pedophiles. Think about it. To be a pedophile, the kind of person who has a sexual preference for small children, is to grow up abused, and then to add insult to injury, to be prohibited by society from experiencing their sexual preference. Just imagine if society forbade you from your sexual preference. For me, that’s women. To be severely punished for acting on my sexual preference, or to engage in intense sexual repression, would be a prison of the worst kind. I don’t believe that my sexual preference is a choice. It came about in some way, and it’s here to stay. Pedophiles are victimized twice, and that really sucks for them. It’s one of the greatest tragedies of humanity, methinks. So what’s the solution? Beyond ending the abuse of children, I don’t know. Once that sexual preference exists, what can we as (I hope) compassionate people do about it? I truly don’t know. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

It is my belief, based on historical review, that progress is primarily advanced by culture and technology, with government policy lagging behind. And how does culture and technology advance progress? By individuals pushing against the moral and political boundaries that have been erected before them. Progress doesn’t happens through political action before it’s happened in hearts and minds. And once something has taken ahold of hearts and minds, it’s inevitable that government policy gets changed. A more effective vote for progress than at the ballot box, is for each individual to identify the undesirable boundaries erected before them, and take direct action pushing against them. Courage may be required. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Editor’s Break 107 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: the value in granting birthright citizenship in order to reduce the amount of coercion leveled at people by governments; the challenge in tailoring your rhetoric, written or spoken, for a broader audience; what libertarianism has to say about bigotry, such as racism and sexism; and more. (Apologies for the audio quality.)

Listen to Editor’s Break 107 (23m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

The first Tuesday after the first Monday every November is Election Day in the United States. Every election season, many organizations attempt to rally voters to the polls. The “Go vote!” message is everywhere these days. As a principled non-voter, I find it incredibly annoying, but such is life under statism.

People are aghast when they learn that I do not participate in electoral politics and voting. I have a lot to say about political philosophy, for sure, but it does not follow that I should be politically active. I have only ever voted twice since my 18th birthday, the first was during the Bush-Kerry election, in which I voted, quite ignorantly, for John Kerry. The second was during the Obama-McCain election, and I wrote myself in for President. It was a joke, because it is a joke.

How does one become a principled non-voter? It was an evolution that occurred alongside my journey toward voluntaryism. I know plenty of libertarians and voluntaryists that still vote, however, so I don’t believe it’s inevitable that this journey will result as it has for me. So here it is, the step-by-step guide to explain exactly why I didn’t vote this November.

Campaign Promises

My first realization was that campaign promises made by candidates are incredibly difficult to keep. What’s the point in allowing a promise to persuade you toward supporting a candidate if it’s obvious that they are either lying to get votes, or promising what is not theirs to promise. The most a candidate can effectively promise is to not do something, such as voting to raise the level of coercion leveled at society by government. And how many popular candidates are doing that?

Tax Burdens

My second realization was that I have no right as an individual to push for the implementation of a tax increase on my neighbors. Very few Propositions on the ballot are to decrease taxes, but what about voting against tax increases? A defensive measure, to be sure, but keep reading.

Increasing Coercion

My third realization was that I have no right as an individual to push for an increase in the amount of coercion leveled at society by governments. Most Propositions necessarily have this effect, not only those that are concerned with tax levels. Again, voting against? Defensive, but keep reading.

Statistical Value

My fourth realization was that my individual vote is statistically worthless. It is an incredibly rare event for a candidate or issue to be decided on the basis of 1 vote. Probabilities tell us that virtually all elections are decided by no fewer than a few hundred votes. Statistical value is lessened even more when you consider the margin of error and the possibility of voter fraud. Every morning after Election Day I wake up and perform a little thought experiment while viewing the election results: I ask myself, would my vote have changed the outcome in any of these elections? To date, the answer has been a decided NO.

Rational Irrationality

My fifth realization was that, after considering the statistical worthlessness of my vote, spending any amount of time on researching the candidates and issues was irrational. How many people spend more time researching elections than researching buying a house? Arguably, the election is far more important, and the knowledge required to make an informed decision is far more vast, than for buying a house. Yet, our vote does not get us what we want in the same way that buying a house does. The house is certain, the vote is not. As economist Bryan Caplan wrote, it is rational to be ignorant when voting, and irrational to be informed. Therefore, most voters are ignorant on the issues, and their vote is worth as much as mine.

Quiet Dissent

My sixth realization was that elections are a very effective way to give people the feeling that they’ve had their say. As long as people feel like they have some effect in the process, that their “voice” has been heard, they are more likely to shut up about their dissent toward government and its policies. I find the idea of voting as voice to be ridiculous on the bases described above, but also, there are far better alternatives to being heard than voting. I’ve been writing and discussing for ten years and podcasting for five, and in all that time I have affected more people to change their thinking, their lives, and their parenting for the better than I ever did in the election booth. Elections are meant to quiet dissent, and I will not allow my dissent to be silenced.

Criminal Gang

My seventh realization, one that was evolving along the way, was that governments are just better organized criminal gangs. Sure, some election issues to increase coercion can be stopped, and some candidates promise to protect your liberties, but every election to date has had the result of increasing the size and scope of government overall. Libertarian-minded candidates and liberty-protecting issues are simply not popular, and probably never will be. Criminal gangs attract the criminal minded. Elections are allowed by government, and are unlikely to affect their existence in any positive direction. Plus, as George Carlin put it, governments were bought and paid for a long time ago. My vote won’t change that.

Culture and Technology

My eighth realization came when considering the effects that culture and technology have toward the actions that people who call themselves “government” take. Governments don’t make progress in front of culture. Quite the opposite. Culture changes first, and forces government policy to follow. So what’s the point in participating in elections if the candidates and issues are several steps behind culture? Consider also the effect that technology has on forcing governments to change the way they do things, or become obsolete. The very real forces of culture and technology toward combating governments are effective and occur without any regard to elections.

So there you have it: why I didn’t vote on Election Day, and why I never will.