The Axiom of Self Ownership is the foundation for all of this political theory, which is basically that because one has complete exclusive possession over their actions as an individual, they have the right to do whatever they want with that body. This objective axiom implies rights like freedom of speech, property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and voluntary contracts between these individuals. The state, most simply, is a monopoly on force. This means that laws and how they are enforced, are entirely up to the state, which is objectively wrong because it violates the axioms freedom of association from earlier. People have the right to manipulate the world around them, as long as it has not already been manipulated by others, to their benefit. This is called property, which is an extension of one’s labor. Different individuals have different properties that they control, and because its causation is their labor, or some voluntary exchange, it is exclusively theirs. Taxation is also the same type of extortion as the violation of the freedom of association of the individuals because it is involuntary. Think of it this way: If there was an ice cream man, and this ice cream man held your and other’s property hostage in exchange for his ice cream being given to everyone or just specific people, is that justified? It is fundamentally the same concept of extortion, people have been blinded by this welfare that violates their inalienable objective rights that was once seen as non-negotiable in western society. Philosophically I would consider myself close to Murray Rothbard, in that I think that the state relies on involuntary taxation which makes it inherently coercive. However, I have a problem with private defense agencies and private courts. These service providers are not logically flawed, and make sense from a philosophical perspective, as it is the resolving of different contractions between individuals. A much easier solution to solving this problem is to create a voluntary covenant. A covenant is any society that operates off of strict rules, but voluntary ones that all beneficiaries agree upon. This means, taxation to live in the covenant could or could not be in place, depending on the contract the participants signed in. I will be using the town with the random name Springfield to explain this. Imagine Springfield undergoes an election, and they have ninety percent of the vote. This person and their team are very libertarian, holding to the NAP, the Axiom of Self Ownership, and private property rights. The supporters and the leaders of this political movement want to make a covenant, so they send out a contract to all people in the town, which is optional: “Everyone who signs this contract is hereby adhering to the NAP, a tax of 10% a year to fund a military, police force, and court system, and has the option to leave the covenant at any time. ” Let’s say that all ninety percent accept, now they will adhere to the covenant, creating a state-like entity, but an entirely voluntary one. This voluntary community or society or anarchy, depending on how the covenant wants to live, only exists in the property of those who agreed to it. This means that if there are enclaves that did not agree to it, they may or may not be decided on the property beneficiaries laws or rules. It is entirely within the NAP to withhold your property from them, and is not coercion, even if it leads to the harm of the non beneficiary. The covenant of Springfield is the perfect society that is not totally anarchy, but at the same time follows self ownership to one of its logical conclusions, the perfect ideology for libertarians who do not want to identify entirely with Rothbard i.e. voluntaryism.
Will create clarifications project Nozick, Rothbard, Hoppe Music: Only Time
