Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content
Start My Journey
Enable Dark Mode

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Jim Babka

A ‘Higher Principle’ for libertarianism

Written by Jim Babka on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Issues, Liberator Online, Libertarian Answers on Issues, Libertarianism, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty. 1 Comment on A ‘Higher Principle’ for libertarianism

Image credit: Unsplash
Libertarians tend to have two special character traits.  First, we’re a bit contrarian. We stand alone, if we must.  Second, we’re logically consistent. We cannot stand hypocrisy.  In our quest for intellectual consistency, we seek principles. In human action, we seek moral consistency. In other words, we seek to live by those principles.  Our principles guide us. They help us sort out tough situations before all the data arrives. Here are some of the more common principles libertarians live by… 
The Self-Ownership Principle: Each person owns themselves. If someone else owns you, you’re a slave. 
Zero Aggression Principle: It is always wrong to initiate force to achieve a social or political goal. 
Law of Equal Liberty: Each person is free to do what he or she wills, so long as they don’t infringe on the equal freedom of another.
Natural Law: The Creator endows each person with rights, at birth, so we must all respect those rights in others (see: The Declaration of Independence)  
Maybe your preferred principle is not listed here. But chances are, that principle, as well as the ones listed above, are…  Personally chosen statements of behavior.  In other words, these principles represent your values. You selected them as an expression of your ethics. Since you chose them, you also enforce them. But we all slip sometimes. Hopefully, you’re forgiving of yourself in those moments where you don’t live up to values.   Likewise, when others around you do not embrace and abide by them, those principles are non-binding. But there is a “higher principle” for society. It’s higher because it can be repeatedly observed in nature. It’s the Principle of Human Respect…  Human happiness, harmony, and prosperity diminish when a person experiences violence, theft, or fraud. This principle, unlike the others, has an “If X, then Y” relationship. In other words, when violence is used to achieve a personal, social, or political goal, the socially desirable benefits of human happiness, social peace, and/or wealth decline. You can test that proposition.  Let’s be clear, each of the principles listed above is wonderful. But the Principle of Human Respect identifies a “cause and effect” relationship that is as consistent and observable as gravity.  Nearly all political philosophies resort to coercive force to achieve their Utopias. Libertarians uniquely recognize that it’s wrong, on both an individual and a political level, to use threats backed by violence to pursue your (conservative or progressive) goals. Only the Principle of Human Respect explains why we’d be happier and more at peace if everyone lived by any of the libertarian “principles.”  ———- Jim Babka is the Editor-at-Large for Advocates for Self-Government and the co-creator of the Zero Aggression Project. 

Donald Trump Doesn't Understand Riots

Written by Jim Babka on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Issues, Liberator Online, Libertarianism, News You Can Use. 5 Comments on Donald Trump Doesn't Understand Riots

Image credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr
Do you understand how to prevent a riot? Do you recognize why social harmony is frayed, and property damage is suddenly rampant?    Donald Trump demonstrates he doesn’t know the answer to those questions. More than once, in June, the president announced his intention to send federal troops to occupy U.S. cities.  The president is not unique. Hardly any Americans know the actual source of domestic tranquility.  Instead, most people are convinced that we need strong shows of force by armed authorities. Otherwise, we’ll have chaos and mass victimization at the hands of a rampaging mob. Riots are not normal. Agitators cannot build critical mass necessary. To get the numbers needed for a riot, they need to tap into an existing rage. Human Respect is already lost as soon as vandalism, looting, and arson begin. Human Respect is a philosophy based on the recognition that using violence to “get things done” undermines happiness, reduces harmony, and damages prosperity.  So here’s what the president and others don’t understand…  Societal harmony is due to the fact that most people, most of the time, practice Human Respect. Your neighbors, even strangers on the street, don’t rely on violence to get things done. They choose tolerance, persuasion, and cooperation instead. Happiness & Harmony Undermined By now, we all know that George Floyd was killed, likely due to the actions of Minneapolis police officers. The cops involved, especially the one with his knee on Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes, knew they were being filmed. They heard objections from people at the scene.  These officers apparently believed they were just doing their jobs, simply containing a suspect.  Right now, there are discussions about the merits of various types of police force such as chokeholds. These discussions miss a big point! Every law – EVERY single one – is backed by violence.  The State’s primary tactic and actual purpose is force. That’s why laws require enFORCErs. The subject of that force might object. That’s why the Enforcers are armed. Chairman Mao was right: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. But why does that subject objection? He or she does so because their happiness has been reduced. It’s automatic, therefore, that harmony will decline, and in some cases, be replaced by outright conflict when the enforcers come calling.  If, instead, our society prioritized and practiced Human Respect, then… 
  • We would reserve the use of force to self-defense and to arrests for antisocial actions we universally agree are crimes. For example, everyone agrees that murder is wrong but pot possession is highly debatable. We should never initiate force simply to achieve a preferred social goal.
  • We would further agree that the amount of force used must be proportional. We must never permit excessive force.
But we, as a society, have REFUSED to agree on those things and to limit the use of law enforcement.  Instead, voters have made virtually every activity the subject of some law or regulation. Republicans and Democrats have noble or pet causes. They’ve asked the cops to do the dirty work. (And the cops willingly went along because they got greater power, bigger budgets, and overtime pay.)        Follow the steps…
  1. Law enforcement was tasked by the voters and their favorite politicians to use force.
  2. Police, doing their job, took actions that robbed human happiness. 
  3. When happiness is harmed, harmony disintegrates. 
  4. Eventually, the loss of prosperity shows up in the form of riots. 
Doubling Down Once again, every time someone deploys initiated or excessive force they undermine happiness, reduce harmony, and damage prosperity.  That’s a natural principle– you can count on it.    Sending cops in riot gear, or worse, sending the military to American cities, adds more force. That might, temporarily, restore “order.” But suppressing the crowds can create pressures that burst forth in the future because nothing was done to address the root problem. Expanding the role of violence does nothing to address the loss of human happiness. The problem might get buried for now, but it isn’t solved.  No Values, No Peace Rioting mobs damage property, injure people, and sometimes kill people. We can trace the rioting mob back to a collapse of values.  Practicing the values of Human Respect is the only way we can provide true and lasting harmony and prosperity.  Strong shows of force do not make us safer. The superior approach is maximizing Human Respect. We do this by developing an appreciation for the fact that everyone is trying to pursue happiness, and that might look different from our version.  That’s not just fortune cookie advice. Politicians generate large stacks of taxes, laws, fines, and regulations. Practicing Human Respect means we prevent and end these disruptions of personal happiness.  This Human Respect approach would dramatically decrease the number of times cops would be called. The number of people shot or abused by police would plummet. And we could eliminate riots over cop conduct. Someone, please tell the president this solution to preventing riots.  ———- Jim Babka is the Editor-at-Large for Advocates for Self-Government and the co-creator of the Zero Aggression Project. 

Ten Principles of the Reopening

Written by Jim Babka on . Posted in Business and Economy, Liberator Online, News, News You Can Use. 10 Comments on Ten Principles of the Reopening

Overlooked in all of the debates over returning to normal life, the virtues of masks, and more is… KINDNESS Here are ten principles of reopening. The core of these concepts is that tolerance and respect is actually in our best interest. 1. Governors do not dictate how many people will come out and resume their lives. People make those decisions. Significant physical distancing was already occurring before the governors acted, and not everyone will rush back to normal life – likely, most people will continue to act with caution. This will have a continuing effect on the economy. 2. The decision To Act or Not To Act can be called Human Action. Economics is the study of human action. We are not merely money-driven creatures. Each human being has their own unique risk profile based on a combination of a) the circumstances in which they find themselves and b) their personality. You determine the “price” of action – risk and reward – for everything you do, and so does everyone else. Some will be ready to act before others. 3. Just because you’re not willing to take a particular (peaceful) risk does not mean others should be blocked from it. Rage towards another person or a law (force) against a peaceful behavior that you don’t like is an anti-empathetic act. You don’t know the individual circumstances that cause another to act as they do. Tolerance is socially vital. Far better to inquire, if you’re concerned, and then to listen to the response in good faith. 4. Moreover, we need explorers who will take greater risks to open things up for the rest of us. We want to get back to normal life where we could shake the hand of a friend, exchange warm hugs, and go to concerts or sporting events. Many of us are unwilling to be the first to venture out. Others will do that for us. And if they have done a bad job of weighing the risks, they will pay the most direct and harshest price. But if their calculation is correct, then they reduce the risks sufficiently for more of us to join them. Lord willing, that soon means all of us. 5. There is no objective best practice for the whole of society, to which 100% must adhere. Nearly every question has more than two sides. You might believe, with tremendous passion, that you know what’s best. You might even have studies to back your claim. But other studies can be produced (with relative ease) and counterclaims can be made. What we have is a war of competing studies – and someone must still take the first step. Maybe we should pause and ask polite questions of those with whom we disagree? Perhaps being humane requires humility. 6. Nearly all of what you know about the world is third or fourth hand. First hand are the observers. They share their data with experts. Experts rely on reporters or analysts (third hand), who in turn deliver it to you. The result is that headlines are more powerful than facts. Given that we each are busy observing our own lives, most of what we know are the headlines. Can you at least see why a given claim is disputable and reasonable people can come to different conclusions? 7. He who controls the headlines sets the agenda. No actual conspiracy is required. Incentives matter. Headline writers have long known that fear and conflict sells better than good news. In other words, clickbait is real. Sometimes, all you have to do is read past the headline to find out that the title was sensational and misleading. Have you actually studied the matter in some detail? 8. Regarding the war of competing studies, there’s a common tendency to label those who disagree with us as stupid or malevolent. I’ll confess, I’ve done that. But it’s hardly ever true. Personal values are powerful, and we’re more open to studies that reflect our values and more critical of those that contradict our beliefs and preferences. But the world is vast, and there are so many ways to be wrong! Before we ask another to do so, can we consider the remote possibility we’re wrong? 9. We’re better humans when we feel existentially free. In times past, being Protestant or being gay might have been considered a threat to society. Those societal fears were False Evidence Appearing Real. Fear is a powerful force that contorts values. After the fear passes, we (and if not, our children and grandchildren) discover that the fear didn’t bring out the best in us. If only we could apply that wisdom in foresight! 10. Where possible it is good practice to consider the fears of others and accommodate them, even at a tiny health or happiness reduction to ourselves. Empathy for others is too often undervalued. Seeing a person who is afraid should evoke some sympathy. There’s no heroism in scaring others. It’s also counterproductive to persuasion. That is, people will better understand why you disagree with an established position if you figure out a considerate, gentle method to present it. All of the aforementioned statements are principles. They apply broadly to a variety of fear situations, both the one we’re experiencing in the present and others that will come. If there was an “11th principle” to cover, it would be this: Politicians and the drive-by media thrive on fear. You can choose the better path of respecting others. Don’t let them turn social problem solving into a partisan battle. Make your own decision. You are free to live your life by your values. But please make consideration for others part of the calculation. Or, in a word… Be Kind. ———- Jim Babka is the Editor-at-Large for Advocates for Self-Government and the co-creator of the Zero Aggression Project.

Crisis and Libertarians

Written by Jim Babka on . Posted in Liberator Online. 8 Comments on Crisis and Libertarians

There is a debate between two camps I’ll charitably call Reasonable Libertarians and Educated Libertarians.* Reasonable libertarians care about being respectable. Educated libertarians are concerned with being correct.   The key differences between the two groups become more evident in a crisis. In fact, the insights described in this article were developed during past crises including 9/11, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the bank crisis/housing crash, and several mass shootings. This article was written during a global pandemic. Reasonable libertarians believe that their ideology is a helpful guide, but they gobble up and consume reported facts to arrive at a more scientific conclusion. Educated libertarians are suspicious of first through door “facts” because experience has taught them that future information – which appears long after the drive-by media has moved on – undermines and even contradicts the earliest reported facts. To state the difference more bluntly, reasonable libertarians are reading today’s New York Times, and educated libertarians are reading history books. The two groups also look at authority figures differently. The reasonable libertarian wants to seem, well, “reasonable,” given that all the news seems to point in a given direction. They’re worried that doctrinaire libertarianism will leave a bad taste in most people’s mouths. The educated libertarian often doesn’t enjoy going against the tide, but they’ve learned that libertarianism has predictive power to see what the media isn’t telling us. Eventually, everyone comes around. When that happens, the educated libertarian wants their friends and family to ask, “How did you know?” To sum up the difference, as news breaks, the reasonable libertarian is more likely to cite establishment authorities, while the educated libertarian is more likely to be suspicious of them. Both reasonable libertarians and educated libertarians are capable of nuance, and they each value precision. But the reasonable libertarian is a bit more likely to cite a statistic while the educated libertarian is a bit more likely to lean on logic. And this gets directly to how they analyze a societal challenge. The reasonable libertarian will say that facts are your friend. They are willing to accept those facts as evidence that government action is valid. But they would insist that the resulting policies be narrowly tailored to make them as libertarian as possible. Their research shapes their response. The educated libertarian will say that principles are your pal. They would instinctively reject any State interventions as fear-based power plays with damaging consequences. Their libertarian response shapes their research. I happen to be an educated libertarian. I truly love my reasonable libertarian brothers and sisters. The reasonable libertarians tend to have advanced degrees and tremendous intellects. They are part of the expert class. They use their scholarly skills to make me think. During normal times, I spend a great deal of time absorbing their thinking because it’s so rational and sound. But in a crisis, in the dark alley of doubt, I want an educated libertarian at my side who won’t succumb to the hysterical hype of the moment. Postscript: The Educated Libertarian is confident that the Reasonable Libertarians will find evidence that the State actually failed after the crisis has passed. As a complement to this editorial, the author recommends Socialists and their Silly Stories by Donald J. Boudreaux. * There’s also a third libertarian group, not covered here. This group presumes Emmanuel’s Law – “never let a crisis go to waste” – is in effect. Their views often include some degree of conspiracy. ———- Jim Babka is the Editor-at-Large for Advocates for Self-Government and the co-creator of the Zero Aggression Project.

You can help UPDATE the World’s Smallest Political Quiz

Written by Jim Babka on . Posted in Liberator Online. No Comments on You can help UPDATE the World’s Smallest Political Quiz

A message from Mike Sertic, President, on progress, plans, and how you can help make those plans a reality. Dear Advocates Supporter, Are you like me? I want more people to understand and appreciate libertarianism — even if they don’t yet fully agree with it.  If so, I need your help.Michael Sertic I bet you’ve used the WSPQ (World’s Smallest Political Quiz) — a.k.a., “The Quiz.” You helped someone plot their results on the Nolan Chart as the kick-off to a libertarian conversation. That’s why…

I want you to help me replace OLD Quiz Questions with NEW Quiz Questions.

You can open a new tab and reference the online-version of the WSPQ as you help me with this task. The Quiz is an educational device. It’s also a “lead generation” tool. Lead generation is a technique for generating interest in a product. And if you think about it, libertarianism is a product designed to provide a specific set of social benefits.

The Quiz is an excellent way to create interest in libertarianism.

WSPQ = Lead Generation But for many people, it’s been a long time since they used the WSPQ to kick off a personal conversation about libertarianism.
  • Maybe that’s because they thought The Quiz is so “20th century.”
  • Perhaps the decline in personal usage of The Quiz is our fault, here at The Advocates.
In my role as the president of The Advocates (Advocates for Self-Government), I’m in a position to see things you don’t. Indeed… I’ve been combing over the data. People take The Quiz. Patterns emerge from the results. Here are the most surprising things I’ve learned: The Quiz still works, and it works wonderfully with young people. 
  1. We’re getting nearly 40,000 Quiz-takers per month.
  2. Thousands of teachers find it very useful. Despite the headlines that all the kids are now socialists, we’re still finding libertarians in the classroom!
That is amazing when you consider that “lead generation” is an entire industry. Nearly every business is looking for more prospects. And “marketing experts” abound, selling the latest “secret sauce.” Here we have a tool that has performed well in the past – and continues to perform in the present. Not enough libertarians realize what you NOW know. It’s part of my job to change the impression – to let everyone know that The Quiz still works! Is the WSPQ stuck in the past? Turns out, the answer is YES. But we know how to fix that! First, it’s obvious that some questions are a bit dated and modern questions might be missing. You will likely find it interesting that…
  1. The WSPQ was created in 1987 by Marshall Fritz.
  2. In 1998, Sharon and Jimmy Harris supervised a thorough review of The Quiz. They improved some word choices but kept existing questions.
  3. Here in 2020, I’m asking for your input to help write new questions to test.
Two questions appear OUTDATED, issues of a bygone time that no longer grab the lapels of an ideologue. Those two statements appear on the Survey, where you can supply your suggestion. Second, my degree is in economics, so I applied a regression analysis. The personal liberties questions must accurately predict a left-liberal lean and the economic questions should lead to a right-conservative result. But the regressions showed that two of the questions lacked SATISFACTORY CORRELATION. In fact, each Quiz statement must achieve three things, simultaneously. I’ve listed all three objectives on the Survey. It turns out that two of those questions don’t predict that Quiz-taker’s ideological leanings. Those two statements also appear on the Survey, where you can submit your replacement idea. We’re considering replacements. Why? Because we want The Quiz to be as accurate as possible. We’re also trying to build a fantastic funnel for libertarian persuasion. The Persuasion Funnel The word “funnel” is jargon for a simple idea: There are steps in a sales process from lead generation to completing the sale. The goal is to move as many prospects as possible down to the conversion point. For our entire history, we’ve had fantastic lead generation. But we haven’t had a systematic closing process – a quantifiable, consistently applied system for “moving Quiz-takers in a libertarian direction.” That’s why… In our previous progress report, our Board Chair introduced you to tools we’re building for our Advocates sales funnel. The most dramatic and important of these was the QEP (Quiz Engagement Program). He told you…
  • 23 million people have taken The Quiz since we put it online in 1996.
  • For the next 23 million Quiz-takers we’re implementing a systematic program to “talk up” libertarianism.
  • These pro-libertarian messages (“engagements”) will be based on the Quiz-taker’s Nolan Chart position. For example, if they score Right (conservative), we might explain the virtues of libertarianism using traditional tones and values.
  • We’ll move people in our direction – sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. We’re going to measure the results of various messages. My analysis will, of course, include regressions!
Why are we updating The Quiz now? The truth of the matter is that we believe we can do better when it matters most. During every presidential election, we see far more Quiz-takers. Therefore, each question should be pertinent and reflect how issues have evolved over time. Relevant questions are alluring and easy to answer. They tap current emotional fevers. Outdated questions are abstract, requiring more effort by the Quiz-taker. On top of that relevance and simplicity, we want the user to value the result – and that’s why I’ve conducted those regressions. These improvements will cause the Updated Quiz to spread farther and faster than the current Quiz can. That’s where you come in…
  • We’ve already begun working with our programming firm on the testing.
  • I’ve also reached out to a professional econometrician to dive deeper into the analytics and find the very best questions.
What should those questions be? You’ll find our survey includes simple instructions on how to write a question for the WSPQ. You could become a part of history here! So please fill out the survey and submit it. We might use your question in an upcoming test. After you fill out the survey, please consider a contribution to the Advocates for Self-Government. It’s tax-deductible. We’re already able to cover the costs involved in the testing platform, thanks to the response to our last letter. Your present support will enable us to robustly test a variety of questions. Here’s how… The key expenditure in the testing process is advertising. The more people who come to take the test-version of The Quiz — possibly even to test your question — the more confidence we can have in the resulting analytics. The Quiz, as you’ve known it, will continue to run on its own, generating nearly 40,000 events each month. We will be conducting this Test on a special, temporary platform. To generate a valid sample – a statistically sufficient number of Quiz-takers – we anticipate investing 95 cents for each Quiz-taker.
  • Your creative input means we’re leaving no stone unturned to find good questions.
  • Your financial support means we’ve tested to ensure that we’ve chosen the best questions.
That’s why every 95 cents you send will be used to generate another Quiz-taker. That can be a generous one-time contribution. But recurring pledges are especially helpful. Monthly pledges are a high-leverage way for a donor of modest means to help The Advocates make consistent, long-range plans. The result will be a lead generation system that’s prepared for the electoral season in 2020. Mike Sertic, President Advocates for Self-Government P.S. Please use the survey to give us your Quiz Questions. And don’t forget your contribution is tax-deductible if you itemize.
coronavirus covid-19 libertarians politics

Four things only libertarians can see about COVID-19

Written by Jim Babka on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Elections and Politics, Healthcare, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. 16 Comments on Four things only libertarians can see about COVID-19

A new form of political correctness has spread, like a virus, across the fruited plain. Libertarians are taking heat – getting angry responses for criticizing governors who have used the spread of COVID-19 to issue edicts that shutter businesses and impose martial law-like schemes. coronavirus covid-19 libertarians politics Still, libertarians find they cannot keep quiet. Their philosophy of self-government is forged in an understanding of consequences. Libertarians are the only members of society who can see – even foresee – the following four things about the State’s edicts and regulations… The seen and the unseen First, libertarians can visualize the Unseen. What is seen is that which is obvious to us. In the present case, it’s easy for us to see the way the virus is spreading and how the healthcare system is overrun in Italy. What is unseen are the variety of harms that occur because people have been denied freedom of association and movement. Politicians are using wartime powers and preening before TV cameras. There will be short-term and long-term effects stemming from their actions. Nearly everyone, especially the regime media, is overlooking these costs. The proper way to analyze this situation is to take all of the effects into account. Libertarians are just like you; they’re sheltering and practicing physical distance. But let’s be clear, not everyone has that luxury. There’s no way that a governor could anticipate, let alone solve all of these sticky issues. Edicts are “one size fits all.” Each person understands their unique situation better than a politician in a distant capitol could. There are many scenarios to consider. Here’s a sampling…
  • Right now, families are trapped in a home with an abuser. Perhaps the abuser’s workday was a time of relief, or the victim’s school or work was an escape path to safety.
  • Suicides will increase during the crisis.
  • Addiction will worsen because the sense of purpose or even mere interruption that occupational work provides has been stolen away.
  • Businesses that were operating on a thin margin will fold, crushing dreams, resulting in unemployment, and even reducing supply. Supply reductions will fuel price increases for all of us.
Notice State failures Second, don’t overlook the harm caused by government actors. For example, Donald Trump’s aides were afraid to give their reelection-minded boss any bad news until it was too late. And the sudden, jarring, gubernatorial edicts have caused fear, uncertainty, and doubt – provoking shortages. In a libertarian world, reliable tests would already be for sale! And if the tests were universally available, the crisis would’ve been far smaller and Americans would be back to work. There are two reasons tests are not already on the market.
  1. Political suppression of information. If they had gotten the signal earlier, then entrepreneurs, inventors, and existing businesses would’ve started delivering tests by now. We know there was sufficient time because a handful of U.S. Senators were briefed in January. After seeing the impending crisis, they sold off their stocks.
  2. Ironically, regulations are supposed to make us safer. What they do instead is create barriers which increase delays and costs. Frequently, the innovator realizes that no action is profitable, choosing not to invent (another unseen effect). The FDA has been in the way of tests getting to market.
Wisdom of the crowd Third, self-government is the best solution to the Knowledge Problem. No matter the doomsday scenario, it’s hard to imagine a single governor (or president) outsmarting millions of people. No matter how brilliant the governor and his or her advisors are, he or she lacks the capacity to win a problem-solving contest against tens of millions of people. Worse, political acts are prone to cause injuries (which tend to be unseen and unreported). The miracle of “stuff” arriving on our store shelves involves millions of micro-decisions. Sudden edicts have replaced that. Shortages result because the governor deploys unanticipated force. Consider… Restaurants who planned menus suddenly have too much food. Grocery stores, who thought people would be at restaurants, find that they have new customers instead. The restaurant owner takes a bath. Even with nearly-empty shelves, stores need to make sure they don’t over-order in response. Grocers know these effects are temporary, but they don’t know when they will end. They don’t want to end up like the restaurants, stuck with too much stock on hand. Uncertainty prevails. Shortages will remain a problem until governors back out of the equation. Human respect Fourth and most important of all, is the matter of Human Respect. The libertarian uniquely recognizes that everyone seeks happiness and that no one person can make everyone happy. The Principle of Human Respect is a natural, cause-and-effect relationship. If I rob you at gunpoint, your happiness decreases. Social harmony and prosperity are diminished too. Since this is a principle, even governors cannot violate it. Bans and edicts are ultimately enforced by armed men and women. These are not acts of persuasion; they are threats to achieve a desired result. When anyone, be they a criminal or your governor, coerces another human being, they never increase happiness. And in the present situation, the bans have obviously decreased social peace and material prosperity. The damage to prosperity is already so obvious that no one is contesting it. And before the governors started acting, we had peaceful cooperation. Most people were already practicing physical distancing. We also witnessed allegedly greedy corporations voluntarily sacrificing many millions of dollars. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 the NCAA closed events to the public. Then, the NBA suspended its season and Disney closed its parks. Like falling dominoes, tons of businesses followed. AFTER that, governors forced the holdouts to close. Libertarians began raising important questions like the four you’ve just reviewed. They’re getting accused of wanting to clog hospitals and increase the death toll. Therefore, consider the role politicians are playing. Are their acts increasing harmony or did they introduce new divisions into our society? ———- Jim Babka is the Editor-at-Large for Advocates for Self-Government and the co-creator of the Zero Aggression Project.