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

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Remso Martinez

Bill Expanding Cider Freedom Passes in New Hampshire

During a recent session in the New Hampshire state legislature, a bill was passed to amend the language and regulations regarding the manufacturing and selling of specialty ciders by brewers and alcohol manufacturers. Now, the hurdles needed to jump through in order to both make and sell ciders in the state of New Hampshire have been lowered. Consumers can enjoy newer flavors and options more frequently throughout the year. For a state whose official drink is apple cider, it only makes sense that there should be as little to no barriers for cider production and selling as possible. Alcohol laws throughout the country vary in widening degrees of regulation and taxes. In my state of Virginia, we have the Alcohol Beverage Control Authority, also to be known as the dreaded ABC. Essentially, the ABC is a state-run store which sells hard liquor and specialty drinks exclusively so that they have a monopoly on primary alcohol sales, thus making both the profit and ensuring they receive all the taxes as part of this monopoly. On top of that, the regulatory hurdles make it near impossible for craft breweries and distilleries to not only start a business but thrive in an unforgiving environment created by politicians and special interests. In 2018, the libertarian organization Free the People discussed this issue in a short documentary called “Guerilla Whiskey. In a follow-up article, contributor Logan Albright summed up the problems with the regulatory environment perfectly:
Whiskey, the drink that has sustained our country through good times and bad, is an American staple that has been made, legally or otherwise, since Scottish and Irish immigrants first came to these shores hundreds of years ago. Today, it’s no longer just a matter of perfecting your recipe and setting up a still. Virginia distillers have to comply with hundreds of pages of densely written regulations and devote huge amounts of their revenue towards taxes and fees just to keep the government off their back. One cannot help but be reminded of the protection money demanded by mobsters in Prohibition-era gangster films; a comical exaggeration doesn’t seem so funny when it hits close to home.”
Small victories like the cider bill in New Hampshire show that free people ultimately want to create, sell, and consume without intrusive and unnecessary obstacles created by the government. I only hope Virginia catches a clue soon since our problems seem to be a bit more gigantic of a hurdle to cross.

The Difference Between Progressives and Libertarians

Often, people will attack or simply oppose things they don’t understand because of a blanket partisan opinion. In this article, I want to flesh out the real differences between people who hold progressive views and those who hold liberal views. Progressives and libertarians hold many similar values: we want to defend the rights of the underprivileged and minorities as well as promote social tolerance. Libertarians often hold in high regard progressives such as Martin Luther King Jr. as well as former President John F. Kennedy for their stances on equal rights before the law. Where the line is drawn, however, is the relationship between the individual and the state. Taken from a Marxist worldview, progressives see an immediate class struggle between the extorted working class and the economic elite. The progressive seeks not to abolish the capitalist system entirely, but to essentially use government to intervene as it may control the decisions of private businesses and to redistribute wealth amongst the working class as they see fit. Progressives also place identity politics and ethnic factionalism above the well being of individual thought and action. Progressives have a very narrow view of natural rights and place safety above liberty. Libertarians reject Marxist social views and see each individual in society as an autonomous being, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which are self-evident. Libertarians see free markets as a ladder of opportunity in which individuals move up and down in a fluctuating environment based upon their own ability. Libertarians wish the limit monopolized public institutions of force and coercion so individuals can live their lives the best way they see fit. Primarily, the biggest shift in mentality between the progressive and the libertarians is divided down the relationship between the individual and the state. Libertarians believe in LGBTQ+ rights, for example, but would not force their beliefs onto those who disagree through means of law or coercion. Libertarians believe that a collection of people in a free market should express the right to collective bargaining, but would never force a person to join a union in order to have a job. Ultimately, libertarians believe that social liberalism is best expressed voluntarily and absent of state intervention, whereas progressives do not wish to live in a world which does not share their progressive views, thus forcing the state to be the enforcer of their standards for mankind.

The Difference Between Conservatives and Libertarians

Often, libertarians and conservative talking points sound very similar, but if you brought up only a certain number of contentious topics, you’d quickly see why libertarians and conservatives are not just variations of each other. Libertarians believe that individuals and individual liberty are the keys to a free society and that these rights are inalienable regardless of where you are on a map. Issues like drug prohibition and prostitution have only to do with the individuals taking part and therefore should fall under criminal behavior since no individual is being deprived of life, liberty, or property through force. Libertarians do not believe in “victimless crime” like conservatives do since libertarian principles are based on voluntary cooperation and consent. Additionally, libertarians are more strident about issues such as gun control compared to conservatives, who claim to support the Second Amendment. On issues such as the recent bump stock ban by the Trump administration, libertarians were firmly against this infringement upon gun rights since the right to own a weapon for self-defense is inalienable, and therefore shall not be infringed. Conservatives, much like progressives, believe that without laws enforced by the state dictating the thoughts and actions of individuals, society would fall into social chaos. However, history shows that governments around the world have done more to harm individuals living peacefully than any other thing in the world. During the Civil Rights era, establishment Democrats, as well as southern conservatives, upheld arcane institutions such as the Jim Crow laws which limited the rights of African-Americans and people of color in order to maintain a false sense of cultural and social tranquility. Finally, in the realm of foreign policy, conservatives have historically been far too keen to intervene in the affairs of other nations who do not directly threaten the safety of the United States. Republican and Democrat presidents alike have a record of saying we support democratic institutions and civil liberties abroad but are far too alright with putting puppet dictators and despots into a place of power. Ultimately, whether it is individual liberty or economic freedom, libertarians live a consistent set of values based on individual freedom which conservatives believe they uphold but are far too willing to compromise in the name of safety.

Why Liberty Doesn’t Appeal to Some People

People are fickle, and anyone who has ever worked sales can tell you that without batting an eye. In direct sales, you are sometimes allowed to do special promotions to push a certain product or even give out free samples. The free samples come with by far the funniest situations according to my own experiences and that of other peers of mine. It comes down to if you can understand why someone would refuse a free sample of gummy bears, for example, you’ll understand why some people either aren’t fans of individual liberty and economic freedom in general. Gummy bears are pretty much universally loved by all people, and unlike its more popular candy cousin chocolate, most the world also isn’t allergic to it so that’s a plus too. On a late Friday night at my local mall, the place is packed, and that is the best time to go directly to customers with those free gummy bear samples. Now, imagine you start offering those things to everyone that comes by, then here you are literally giving out free samples of a new gummy bear flavor (this is a candy shop if you haven’t figured it out yet) and they don’t have to do anything other than taking it, they can even take two samples if they want. With most people, the samples will be a hit, but some folks will just either ignore you entirely or let you pitch them and then decide for some random reason they don’t want it. You might think getting everyone to take a free sample of gummy bears would be the easiest thing to do, but there are those random people who just don’t take advantage of a good situation when they see it. Libertarian solutions aren’t as easy to digest as a free gummy bear sample, but the example of the people who just don’t take it still applies. Libertarian solutions don’t require force, theft, or coercion, they just require individual responsibility. You distill it down to that basic understanding and on a surface level, people will probably agree with you, but there will always be those that don’t, and honestly, you can’t do anything about those folks. Most people who just can’t even agree with libertarian philosophy at a basic level usually latch onto three camps- they don’t want any responsibility, they think little of humanity itself, or they are so wrapped up in a partisan battle flag, they won’t even let you try to convince them. Whether you’re going business to business selling bags of makeup or selling religion to sinners on a city street, you need to understand that no is just another word for go, you can’t make people who don’t want to listen to you listen, so don’t get caught up on them and instead focus on general conversations with those who will.

Five Books to Jumpstart Your Knowledge of Libertarianism

So, you want to learn more about libertarianism? Check out these books and don’t forget to take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto by Matt Kibbe Written by the organizer behind the Tea Party revolution that took Washington D.C. by storm and armed us with a new generation of pro-liberty leaders in Congress and across the country, Matt Kibbe guides readers through the basics of understanding why politics isn’t a spectator sport. From discussing the virtues of free markets by Ludwig Von Mises to nefarious actions by statists in both major political parties, this is the perfect primer for anyone whose liberty curious and wants to lift the veil and peek into a world where it’s not cool to hurt people and take their stuff. Anthem by Ayn Rand This short novella by Russian writer and philosopher Ayn Rand was dystopian before dystopian novels were cool. Following an outcast in a conformist society where your life is dictated from cradle to grave. Anthem puts you in the mind of a character who lives in a world where “I” isn’t a word and free will is punishable by death. If you weren’t concerned about our public education system and political correctness before, you will be after this! Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek Dedicated to the socialists in all parties who refused to observe the mistakes of our past we many nations began to walk into a darkened future in the ashes of back-to-back world wars, Hayek shows the reader how the desire for collective action leads to the enslavement of freedom itself. This book exposes the reader to the mindset of those who cry for more regulation and central control, and how their desire for order simply means more chains on the society they imagine they are freeing from the perils of an unjust world. Free to Choose by Milton Friedman Milton Friedman took the world of politics and economics by storm simply by stating loud and proud that society thrives when people are left to make their own decisions. From sweatshops in Hong Kong to unconventional, yet highly effective non-profit schools in the streets of New York, Friedman shows how deregulation, free markets, and individual choice takes people from victimhood to empowerment when government gets out of the way to show that freedom works. Stay Away From the Libertarians! by Remso W. Martinez A shameless plug from your neighborhood, political Forest Gump, I take you through a brief history of the modern libertarian movement from 2012 through 2016 and show you how libertarians have changed the way millions view the relationship between themselves and the state. From discussing why the most popular libertarian stereotypes are mostly bunk to defending Hooters as the restaurant chain that best exemplifies free markets and individual liberty, you’ll learn once and for all why lazy academics, the fake news, and statist politicians in both parties fear libertarians once and for all.

How Would You Fight an Alien Invasion as President?

Libertarian foreign policy is simple, though critics make it out to be something more complicated than it really is. As Frederich Bastiat said in his treatise “The Law,” he stated, “If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.” Diplomacy and free trade are paramount to peace and cooperation amongst nations, and libertarians believe that both those factors, when respected, can prevent most international incidents from occurring if certain politicians just let free people be. However, libertarians are not averse to war and believe it is the right of nations to defend themselves of another nation has attempted to invade their sovereign territory or inflict harm upon their civilian populations. Now, what do you do if you aren’t dealing with another country? What do you do if you are dealing with an alien invasion from outer space? Congressman Seth Moulton thinks he has a plan. The recent addition to the crowded field for the Democratic nomination for president told Buzzfeed News if encountered with a potential alien invasion, he would first try diplomacy. Moulton started out by saying he’d attempt to invite the aliens over for a meal to break bread and offer them a “classic American meal” such as a cheeseburger and a beer. “I would not build a wall between here and Mars,” Moulton stated, “I would not do that. No, you got to start — and this is serious, guys — you got to start with diplomacy. You always have to start with diplomacy.” While the hypothetical alien invasion situation is mostly a joke, the question’s underlying goal was to see how the candidate sees the world around him where trade wars and military conflicts are often fought by egos and bullets instead of cool heads and negotiations. Early in America’s founding, George Washington warned the United States to avoid entangling alliances, put diplomacy before grandstanding, and allow the free trade of goods and labor amongst voluntary people to sort out the rest. Author Brian Doherty published an article at the Cato Institute several years back discussing the need for positive diplomatic relations and healthy trade throughout the world, saying, “economic and moral case for free trade of goods, capital, and labor across borders is so strong, and so core to the libertarian vision, that any politician, party, or group that professes to further the cause of liberty and does not understand and advocate it cannot be relied on as an intelligent ally.” While actions speak louder than words, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak in favor of peace, diplomacy, beer, and cheeseburgers instead of getting into unconstitutional foreign conflicts in order to flex our collective muscle and waging needless protectionist trade wars that inadvertently harm Americans in the long run.

Couple Could be Imprisoned or Executed for Seasteading Off of Thailand

Over a month ago, I published an article about the exciting journey of two Bitcoin entrepreneurs who were attempting to start the first major seasteading community in international waters off the coast of Thailand. Now, the peaceful couple faces a possible threat not only to their vision but their very lives. According to a report from Fox News, “Thai authorities raided a floating home on Thursday in the Andaman Sea belonging to Chad Elwartowski and Supranee Thepdet, known as Nadia, who sought to be pioneers in the ‘seasteading’ movement which promotes living in international waters to be free of any nation’s laws.” Elwartowski published a post to his Facebook page (which has since been taken down) telling his social media network, “Thailand wants us killed.” “Hunting us down to our death is just plain stupid,” Elwartowski wrote, “and highlights exactly the reason someone would be willing to go out in the middle of the ocean to get away from governments.” He continued stating, “We never had any ill intentions and I even state plainly several times that I would not want to be a citizen of any seastead nation that would have me.” The seasteading movement, which seeks to fight for the rights of individuals and communities to live on habitable platforms in the open ocean seems not to have shown the dark reality of the cost of attempting to live free in an unfree world. This secessionist mindset of self-determination is growing amongst people across the political spectrum, from hardcore libertarians to climate change-fearing progressives who want an attempt to live lives on their terms. Marc Clair, the host of the Lions of Liberty podcast, wrote a piece a while back regarding the self-determination views regarding secession from an Austrian economics perspective. Clair summarized, “If all associations should be voluntary, then logically any person or group of persons who no longer wishes to be associated with another group should be allowed to peacefully secede from that group.  The aggressor is not the seceder, but rather the ruling entity that uses violence to halt the secession.” As of now, the couple is reported to be safe and unharmed, however, Fox reported that “Thailand’s navy said the couple’s outpost still endangered national sovereignty, charging them with article 119 of the Thai Criminal Code, an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death.” As of now, the situation has been requested by law enforcement to be reviewed by Thailand’s attorney general since the ocean home was legally in international waters. This shows that unless people are free of the violent nature of government, peaceful and self-determining individuals aren’t even safe where the government of any nation has no legal authority.

Mayor Pete Is Right About Crony Capitalism, Wrong About Solutions

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg came back to CNN for the recent round of Democrat presidential town halls. During his Q and A with the audience, one attendee asked Buttigieg (also known amongst his fan base as “Mayor Pete”) what he would do as president to reduce the role of money and corporate control over politics. Mayor Pete did identify that money in politics turns politicians into game dealers as corporations attempt to buy and sell regulatory influence in order to keep their stockholders happy and their bought-off politicians in power. Mayor Pete is accurate in his assessment of what libertarians refer to as “crony capitalism,” but his proposals involve more laws, regulations, and bigger government. What Mayor Pete either doesn’t understand – or doesn’t care about – is the fact that the bigger the government’s reach and authority is, the more crony capitalists want to buy off the same lawmakers who are supposed to look out for the general interest of all Americans – not just billionaires, and big corporations. The libertarian solution to divorcing big government from big business might sound simple but it is anything but. In order to decrease or essentially kill the incentive to throw money into politics as a way of influencing the government, we need to drastically reduce or eliminate the portions of control over our lives that big businesses and crony capitalists want sway over. Whether it is appointing crony friendly regulators to federal agencies, or providing enough donations to as many candidates needed to pass a bill to bail out big banks, by downsizing the size and scope of government we are downsizing the opportunity for greed and corruption to damage our democratic institutions. What Mayor Pete needs to understand is that the issue to government problems isn’t bigger government, that is what all crony capitalists want because they know that anyone can be bought if the price is right in the world of slinging influence and control over the masses of taxpayers that have to pray that hopefully their congressman and their senator will listen to their voters instead of just their donors. When in doubt, just remember where government fails, freedom works and the same principle applies to corporate cronies that attempt to use government as a means of controlling.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Stands Firm on Anti-Regime Change Stance

At the Houston She the People forum, Democrat Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard stood her ground defending her non-interventionist and anti-regime change stance. When asked by one of the moderators about her stance towards U.S. involvement in Syria and view of the controversial Assad regime, Gabbard replied:
“Our military’s mission and purpose is to keep the American people safe. Our troops deployed to Syria initially to work with the Kurdish forces on the ground to go after and defeat ISIS, and that mission has largely been accomplished. Unfortunately, as this was happening since 2011, covertly initially with the CIA, there was a regime change war that was launched during that time as part of that war, and many of you might not be aware of it but our taxpayer dollars were being used to provide both direct and indirect support to terrorist groups in Syria like Al Qaeda and others in order to go in and topple the Assad government. I had a chance to go to Syria where I heard from the Syrian people, I heard from religious leaders who pleaded and begged for the United States to stop its support because they knew whether there were some that supported the Assad government, and others wanted to see him go, they knew that if the United States and other countries were successful in this regime change war the most powerful force on the ground would fill that vacuum and the most powerful force were these terrorist groups whose sole mission was to wipe out Christians and other minority groups…”
To date, the U.S. has spent $5.6 trillion dollars from post-9/11 related conflicts around the world since 2001, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of killed and displaced people throughout the Middle East. Gabbard, a U.S. Army veteran who was both critical of the Obama administration’s interventionism in North Africa and the Middle East, as well as the Trump administration’s aiding of the Saudi Arabian involvement in the Yemenese civil war, has been a consistent voice against the military-industrial complex as well as unconstitutional military intervention overseas. In the wake of the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, Gabbard released a scolding video aimed at the Trump administration’s cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, who she blamed for propagating the extremist Wahhabi Salafism ideology which inspired the mastermind of the bombings. Both Republicans and Democrats have found common ground in targetting Gabbard’s anti-regime change stance, showing that constant war is perhaps one of the only bipartisan issues in D.C. today. Still, harmful entangling alliances and tolerance of hostile regimes is a habit formed by both parties. According to a piece from Adam Dick at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity back in 2018, Dick pointed out that, “Trump’s commitment to Saudi Arabia is in line with a long history of United States presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, supporting governments around the world — including the Saudi Arabia government — that have been doing horrible things, while basing that support, including the providing of military and intelligence assistance, on nebulous claims of ‘national security.’” Gabbard’s record of working across the aisle regarding non-interventionist strategies overseas as well as her military record show that the United States’ true enemy might be our own ignorance towards our impact overseas and how our actions are affecting our prosperity at home.

Should Journalists be Publicly Subsidized? Andrew Yang Thinks So

Credibility amongst media according to most Americans polled is at an all-time low, and the epidemic of online “fake news” is made worse by the overwhelming amount of local “news deserts” throughout the country. How do we fix this mess so we can bring real news of importance to the local and national discussion? If you’re Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, you throw taxpayer money at the problem and let the rest sort itself out it seems. In an official tweet by Yang and according to a public stance on his campaign website, he wants American taxpayers to subsidize journalists because journalism, “is fragmenting as ad revenue diminishes local press is particularly hard-hit. I’m for public subsidies and investment in journalism for the 21st century as a public good. Journalism and information is vital to democracy.” This plan is not only undemocratic but is also unconstitutional as well as anti-free enterprise. While this issue can be stretched out into a more eloquent explanation as to why people who do truly support a free and fair press should not support Yang’s position, the main principle is this: if you take the king’s coin you ultimately have to sign the king’s song. By accepting taxpayer money, there are always strings attached, and it is antithetical to the premise of a government watchdog to take money from the people they are supposed to hold accountable. If you think the media is biased and corrupt now, just wait until they start lobbying politicians you don’t like for more taxpayer money. Secondly, access to information is a public right as well as protected free speech and freedom of the press, but nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say people have a right to 24/7 breaking news. The truth is local media alone was dying way before Facebook and Twitter and had been going downhill since the dawn of the internet. The media today is going through a natural purging period as outlets that can’t adapt to the times are bound to fail. It is the job of journalists and publishers to find new ways to profit and provide content consumers are willing to put money towards, not the government. Lastly, ask yourself whether you feel comfortable with Barack Obama or Donald Trump writing the standards for which individuals and media outlets would have to be held accountable to if they wanted some taxpayer-backed funding. Simply put, this doesn’t fix the issues that only market competition and consumer demand can, and it leads the door wide open for rampant corruption and abuse of the media consuming public seen only in banana republics.

Senator Klobuchar’s Frozen Pizza Problem

During CNN’s New Hampshire Town Hall recently with the Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Harvard student Thomas Satterthwaite asked perhaps the funniest and most insightful question anyone has asked anyone running for president in my lifetime. His question was so telling of our current culture, he should earn a reward simply for asking it. Satterthwaite asked Klobuchar why she at one point asked the FDA to classify frozen pizza as a vegetable. “In 2010, you petitioned the USDA to keep frozen pizzas in school lunches, therefore allowing for the sauce to be counted as a vegetable in order to support the business of a Minnesota frozen foods company. Amid the obesity epidemic that has plagued this country for decades, to what extent do you believe that the financial interests of corporations in your home state should outweigh the health of America’s next generation?,” asked the student to the senator in the hot seat. Quickly, Klobuchar gave the typical political answer of saying that she regretted her letter to the FDA, and said she only did so to protect the jobs of the food plant workers who’d potentially be out of a job if the schools in question had switched to healthier options and dare say real vegetables. “What does that mean in the context of this crowd?” CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked while gesturing to the audience of predominantly college students, saying in jest “they think frozen pizza is a food group.” Cuomo quickly drove attention back to the topic asking Klobuchar “do you think they should be allowed in school lunches?” Klobuchar replied, “I didn’t think that frozen pizza with tomato sauce on it should be counted as a vegetable…” While at face value this whole question may seem ridiculous, it shows the contradicting nature of public stances regarding issues such as childhood obesity and public sector actions such as counting frozen pizza as a vegetable. While Klobuchar defended her position at the time as a way to defend jobs in her state while kids at public schools ate frozen pizza, she eventually came out against her previous stance only after it became public and concerned parents across the country. What is worse is that in public school districts across the country, school districts will parse through nutritional standards to lower barriers for negotiations so they can contract out school lunches to the lowest contractor possible. Several years ago, this issue really hit the public’s conscious when journalist Charlie LeDuff discussed his outrage after learning his child and her classmates were served “orange drink” instead of actual orange juice because the public school district wanted to cut costs. Across the country today, the private sector is stepping up to bring delicious and nutritious meals into public schools out of a desire to help America’s children, especially in districts where most students are on a free or reduced lunch plan. What Klobuchar’s pizza dilemma shows is that if you want to have your kids eat healthily, the only way to ensure it is to find ways to provide it yourself or get involved with your local school board or PTA to prevent situations like this one from happening because a politician attempted to classify frozen pizza as a vegetable.

Murray Rothbard vs Pete Buttigieg on National Service

The 1960s was an interesting time for libertarians to observe, as the Cold War, Vietnam, the struggling Goldwater movement, and the eventual rise of LBJ’s Great Society and the era of Richard Nixon provided economist Murray Rothbard with some of his most prolific writings. Specifically, Rothbard’s essay series “Abolish Slavery!” – which are collected in the book “Never a Dull Moment: A Libertarian Look at the Sixties” – offer some of the most prolific arguments against what Rothbard considered state-enforced slavery. From his colorful arguments against the draft to his criticisms of mandatory school attendance forced upon America’s youth, Rothbard made it abundantly clear: where free people are deprived of self-autonomy and forced into any form of labor against their will, there is no free society. The concept of a forced national service (with or without a military service factor depending on the candidate) has been making its rounds during the Democratic primaries. Recently, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana came out in favor of a form of national service in order to fix, “the threat of social cohesion that helps characterize this presidency [the Trump administration] but also this era.” Rothbard – throughout his seven “Abolish Slavery!” essays – made it clear that not only is any form of forced labor immoral, but forced labor of any form itself could never achieve the goals it intended. From the rise in complaints about juvenile delinquency in public schools to people lying or being forced into jail because of an offense to the “voluntary” income tax, Rothbard emphasized that we could not force better behavior onto society by gunpoint if we wished for it to get better. What has always been the glue of civil society has been free markets, respect for civil institutions, communities of faith, and an emphasis on the family. Over the last hundred years especially, heavy-handed government policies that have always intended to help provide relief to society’s woes have had the opposite effect. This national service plan presupposes that societal problems brought about by our culture are a direct responsibility of the federal government. If this is the case, then the government could simply create forced labor programs to eliminate anything that appears remotely unpleasant. As a result, the state would grow even bigger, civil liberties would shrink more, and to defy such an order to comply would immediately turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.