Taxes are not "Membership Dues"

Countries are not Country Clubs

OK, now on to the concept of "society." A society refers to a group of individuals and their relationships among each other within a geographic area. One can describe a society only by describing the nature of one or more people, and the way they interact. Society, like the universe, does not have a nature apart from the nature of its members.

So what does it mean for something to be "good for society"? The only thing it could be is that this thing is good for each individual member of a society. The term "good" can refer to living things only.

The existence of inanimate objects is unconditional. They may change form, but they will always exist. Living things must take actions to sustain their living, i.e., their existence. When an organism dies it loses its identity as a living thing, and becomes an inanimate object. Nothing can exist in contradiction to its nature. The nature of fish is to take oxygen out of water. Out of water, they can not exist according to their nature. The nature of human beings, their primary means of survival and flourishing, is to be rational. Hence, good is that which is beneficial to the life of a rational being.

Society is not alive--it consists of living beings. Society can not "have ills" Qonly the individuals in it can. Society does not take action to sustain its own survival. Only the individual members of a society do.

Does society have a front office? Many people like to think so. They call it government. But government, like any other institution, consists of people and their relating to each other. Hence, government is part of society. It cannot operate outside of society just as a creator can't operate outside of the universe. Like any other institution, it can provide services.

For some reason, many people think that government need not operate by its own laws. They engage in doublethink: they think that theft is wrong, so it should be illegal. Yet, the law enforcement institution can support itself by taking money from people without their consent, i.e. by theft. People have often suggested that I leave the country if I am so dissatisfied with the government. Why must I do that, I ask? The government is not "in charge" of the country, is it? Can I not just choose to not deal with government, as I am free not to trade with other institutions? I can complain about my bank, and if I want to, I can close my accounts there. Why is the government different? Is it not a group of people providing services to others? Does the government own the country?

The real issue here is that of contracts. When I open a bank account, both parties in the relationship, the bank and I, agree to the terms of the relationship, and indicate our consent my signing a contract. Many of the government's laws serve to enforce contracts that are broken. Yet, I never signed a contract agreeing to pay for government services, yet they still take my money--right out of my paycheck before I even possessed it.

It is true that I have benefited from government services. But it is also true that I benefit when a kid runs to my car when I am in a traffic jam and washes my windshield. But that does not warrant his cracking my windshield if I refuse to pay him for services I did not request. Yet for some reason, the government can initiate force upon me and my property if I do not consent to pay for their services. For some reason, the government is exempt from its own laws, and to end my relationship with it, I must pack up and leave the country. Why is the government like that?

It is so because people let it be so. Many think that a government, operating outside of society, makes it possible for a society to run. Implicit is the false idea that society is an entity in itself, apart from individual members. These liberals think that without a government, people would not be able to carry out ordered economic transactions. But, in fact, free markets evolve as do the rules of grammar: gradually and spontaneously, without coercion or central planning.

People think of the government as if it were a college. A college's administration admits students and hires professors to organize a school. But a government does not organize the market. The economic market, where goods are produced and traded, is the source of a government's funding. Countries are not country clubs.

Look at the parallels between notions of God and government. Religions preach obedience to God and his laws, governments exhort obedience to their laws. In religious mythology, a person who does what his God wants will get blessings. United States citizens do what bureaucrats want, and they get tax breaks.

A religious person wants something very much, so he asks his God for it. A US citizen wants something, and instead of taking responsibility for getting it himself, he asks the government to achieve his goal for him. Instead of achieving his goal by getting voluntary cooperation from individuals, he asks the all-powerful government to force people to cooperate with him. He asks the government to reach down "into society," like the hand of God, to fix his problems. What God and government have in common here is the use of force. God allegedly can make miracles, causing things to contradict their own nature. Government uses force to make humans act in contradiction to their natural means of survival: living as rational animals. Government forces people to sacrifice their rational judgment in choosing values to those values chosen by others.

And what about education? Public education has taken the responsibility of raising children away from parents to make children of the State. In parochial schools, students pray to God and learn to follow his commandments. In government funded schools, students take the daily Pledge of Allegiance, i.e. they declare their allegiance to the State, which is, still, "one nation, under God." Despite what you might like to think, government schools are not for the sake of the children, but for the sake of perpetuating the State's power:

The following passage from Breaking Point and Beyond, by George Land and Beth Jarman, illustrates the real function of public education: "As late as October 1989, the Association of California School Administrators, operating from a viewpoint of [traditional] thinking, announced, "The purpose of the school system is not to provide students with an education." Individual education is 'a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order.' Here the leaders of one of the largest school systems in the world have declared that students can enter the twenty-first century supported by schools that do not have education as their central purpose?"

What is their purpose? Look to the past and see: