Non-Aggression, Civil War, Revolution or Tyranny; Be Free Peacefully by Jesse Mathewson

In 1776 what is now known as the American Revolution, or War of Independence, was officially declared. Fortunately, the men who decided to place their names upon the Declaration of Independence were successful in their endeavors to become free of Great Britain’s direct rule. The Highland Scots who immigrated to North Carolina and surrounding locations were not so successful when they attempted to do the same thing at least twice before.

The signers of the Declaration knew they would die horrible deaths if they lost this gamble. One item of note; the infamous co-author (and initial instigator) of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He was an Anglophile, and desired what all those who joined his Federalist party early on desired, which was control of the working classes by the ruling class, or a monarchy under the guise of a “free” democratic/republic. I bring this up because, many of those who later grasped control of the fledgling nation and turned it into the socialist empire we have today did not risk themselves, but rode in on the backs of others.*

In 1861 the Civil War was initiated, and even though the original goal of the Southern States was a peaceful secession, Abraham Lincoln decided that it was necessary to ensure complete financial domination of North America and opted to lie, going against his inaugural address and declaring war upon the Southern States. It is true, the South fired upon Fort Sumter, however, if Lincoln had followed through with original promises that Fort Sumter would have been vacated by Union troops at that time. This war was fought for the exact same reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The significant difference is that the South lost this war, and Lincoln was lauded a hero by those who enjoyed the idea of an American monarchy in the guise of democracy.

Modern historians often tout the traitorous liar Lincoln’s own words regarding slavery as being the cause, however, all of those historians ignore the decades of talks, tax reforms, added tariffs and mistreatments by the northern states against the southern states. These same historians also forget that slavery was gone in the south before it was in the north. In fact, almost two decades after the War of Northern Aggression ended, slaves were still held in several northern states. They also tend to misinterpret or reinterpret Lincoln’s various speeches and letters and not show the public the letters where he makes clear his goal for a single state.

So how does all of this fit into what we see today? Taxes. The same reason the revolution was fought, and that the war of northern aggression was fought, and why so many people are so distraught now. Some have the idea that voting will effect change, and yet, throughout history voting has never actually effected change other than to further tighten the bonds of the state. Why, some may ask, must we change anything? After all we have a house, two cars and 2.5 children. If we pay our taxes and follow the law we are left alone. This is the reasoning of much of the general public. And yet, every day more people are arrested for the terrible crime of using drugs declared ‘bad’ by the state. Houses, cars, and more are seized for failure to pay taxes.

As a voluntaryist, it is my personal opinion that, we should take individual responsibility, that our decisions regarding our bodies as long as those decisions do not directly harm another human should be left to us, individually. As of the Department of Justice finalized its report for 2009, over 5.2 million people in the United States are in the system, either in prison or on probation, for felony crimes. Of those millions well over half are there for non-violent offences like smoking some weed, charging for the use of their bodies, or for the terrible crime of being unable to or failing to allow the state to collect its due from them in the form of taxation.

Without the state and its restrictions, crime would be a vanishingly small percentage of what it is now. Without the states intervention hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of “legal” drugs allowed and pushed by the Federal Drug and Food Administration would be alive. The tens of thousands of people murdered as a result of the ‘drug war’ (an oxymoron – wars are fought against people, not drugs) currently being fought, none would have died over the past couple of years. The cartels that exist now, which are reminiscent of the organized crime families of the roaring 20′s and bloody 30′s, would not exist. There would be no need for their existence. In addition the numerous wars being fought around the globe would not be occurring and the terrible terrorists that threaten our “freedom” would no longer have a reason to want us dead. The countless millions murdered as a result of these wars for political and monetary gain would not have perished.

What is the answer? For me it is putting into action the tenets of the Non-Aggression Principle, which states, “Do not seek to harm others for personal gain.”

Instead of voting and thereby giving my non-verbal consent for the murder and incarceration of so many who have never hurt another human being with intent, I use my time to interact with my neighbors. I frequent the farmers markets and yard sales and show others that by working with our neighbors we can in fact have a better community and, as a direct result, a better life. It appears to me that instead of freedom, what voters really desire is freedom from liberty. They do not want to have to take personal responsibility for their actions and to do the work of interacting with their neighbors for mutual gain.

Those of us who believe that what is occurring is wrong and actively seek to right those wrongs can do so by simply living lives that reflect what we believe. It is not an easy road. In fact it is quite difficult at times. But those who truly desire freedom, i.e. individual sovereignty, no taxation, mutually agreeable interactions, must understand that they cannot have it when the state controls their every decision, action, and even their ideas. In the end the only truly beneficial way to gain freedom and liberty from the state that many of us detest is to simply opt out from all voluntary support of the state.

So this November, instead of voting in 2012, opt out, take this giant and uncomfortable step and simply stay home. Instead of filling our houses with non-stop political attack ads and propaganda from those we have previously voted for or against, stop. Turn the television off. Go outside and throw a ball with your children, take up gardening, go join a local neighborhood watch group, or learn a new skill. Pick up a book, but instead of reading the latest and greatest novel, read an autobiography or collection of letters from a favorite person in history. Read a book on building something you have never built, and then build that thing. Be free, take charge of your own life, and shed the shackles of the state in the process of gaining knowledge.

Free the mind and the body will follow

*Alexander Hamilton was Washington’s aide-de-camp and, as such, was never truly at risk of death or combat. History has shown Washington to be a pitiful general at best, though modern revisionist historians record him as a brilliant man. He was no better than a modern senator, riding to victory on other backs and other victories. He was a politician, as was Hamilton. If not for Burr’s marvelously timed and wonderfully placed shot, Hamilton may have actually become president.

7 thoughts on “Non-Aggression, Civil War, Revolution or Tyranny; Be Free Peacefully by Jesse Mathewson

  1. “Non-Aggression Principle, which states, “Do not seek to harm others for personal gain.””

    That’s NOT what it says, Jesse.

    This is the actual non aggression principle:

    No human being has any right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force.

  2. It too thought Jesse’s wording was odd at first, but what’s important is what it says. In the end, I think Jesse’s is fine, even excellent. His is worded from the individual’s perspective, which after all is where the action is happening, while yours, ML, is worded as a general impersonal principle. Either one is great, since the (individual) acceptance of either one, under either wording, gets to the goal.

    Meanwhile, Jesse, I thought this was a great post. I love it when it’s easy and clear! On the point of the nature of a crime…

    “A crime is this. A crime is an action taken against another person, which degrades or inhibits his ability to act as he is, which is as a volitional creature. And yes, the only way to do this is with physical force; otherwise the person still has the ability to do as he wishes.”

    http://indarchist.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/what-is-a-crime/

  3. One more thing, Jesse. I got an add-on…

    “Free the mind and the body will follow”

    And do it while you’re young, before the body CAN’T follow!

  4. I always enjoy Jesse’s essays. :) They are certainly thought provoking.

    My objection to Jesse’s definition of non-aggression is that it seems to limit aggression to the idea of “personal gain,” and that it claims in any way to be THE “Non Aggression Principle.”

    Too many people already equate “profit” and “gain” automatically with evil, and I don’t think it is helpful to encourage that or limit the principle to that aspect.

    He can state it any way he pleases, of course, but I object to the implication that his is the original statement or meaning of that statement. I’ve not ever heard it that way, so how can that be, THE “Non-Aggression Principle?” I think L. Neil Smith would take great exception to that idea.

    The original wording and meaning of the non-aggression principle is VERY clear, and very personal.

  5. Everyone should evoke/invoke that which they desire to follow. :)

    Smith was great, but in no way the be all end all. Besides, unless someone blatantly desires to have personal gain, one must question their integrity, after all from what I have seen all personal/ interpersonal actions stem from personal satisfaction/ie gain. :)

    And yes, agreed, before one is so old as to only have liberty of the mind…though that is for myself at least preferable to state any which way you cut it :)

  6. There is nothing wrong in non-aggressive “self-interest” otherwise precious little would get done. Altruisim taken to its corrupt aggressive extreme is socialism. But notice how many of those beknighted souls in positions of power “suffer” for the common man by feathering their nests so generously. Of course always with a sympathetic tear to be shed at the appropriate time and place.

  7. Since there appear to be intelligent people here (no one actually used name calling as a rhetorical technique) I would like you to investigatge the following:
    Enter the two words orwells boot into any search engine. The first item returned, usually under factotum666, but sometimes dnusbaum… is mine. Please read it, and the link to xfoolnature.org Constructive criticism is welcome.

    I think that I have some usable universable solutions there. But maybe some of you can shoot holes in what I have written

Leave a Reply