In my years of discussing politics, I have not found any underlying premises upon which non-libertarians base their political beliefs. But now I have discovered their sometimes unacknowledged principle: The government should involve itself in people¹s lives when the result of people dealing with each other on a strictly voluntary basis does not yield the result they desire, i.e., when capitalism does not "work."

Another way of phrasing this idea is: "In a free society, some people may not do what I want them to do, like giving their money to a certain group of people, so it should be illegal not to do such things. Also, people may do things I do not like, like putting certain things in their own bodies, so it should be illegal to do such things." This is the principle behind most people¹s advocating government infringement on the rights of others.

Since I value the lives if individual humans, and since humans can live as humans only if they are free from coercion from others, I value the protection of individual rights. Hence, I hold that the sole purpose of government is to provide protection of civil and economic liberties.

I have naively wasted my time looking for logical inconsistencies in people¹s arguments, they would reevaluate their arguments to eliminate contradictions they saw. But people base their responses to my free market beliefs on fear. Since many can not imagine how things the government tries and often fails to do now can be done without coercion, threats, and extortion, they cling to government action to force people to do what they want them to do.

Here is a sampling of someone¹s thoughts: "How do I know people will get educated [the way I want them to] without compulsory government schools? How can I be guaranteed that people do not go hungry and have health care [without a law dictating which charities we must give to]? How can I feel secure[,without the FDA,] that people will not "do drugs"?

These concerns are valid, but laws proposed to pacify them have deleterious effects: The public school system involves extortion and discourages parental student responsibility. Welfare results in ³diffusion of responsibility,² which kills the benevolence free people show to each other. Socialized medicine increases demand for health care, which raises costs to those who pay for it, so more people can¹t afford care. The government¹s paternalistic externalization of the cost of people¹s shortsightedness and irresponsibility rewards fools at the expense of self-responsible people.

I can tell pro-choice advocates that the FDA forbids women and men the right to do to their bodies what they please, and by keeping drugs off the market, kills more people than AIDS, car accidents, and drug overdoses. I can tell supporters of gay marriages that people should be free to interact in any way they please, but they are for the minimum wage, which causes unemployment. People want the government to stamp out ³monopolies,² but are advocates of coercively held government monopolies on schools, charities, mail delivery, drug testing, health care, etc. These monopolies eliminate competition, and hence the incentives for efficiency and innovation required for producing the technology responsible for today¹s, and tomorrow's, standard of living.

But people do not care about logical consistency or extortion, or even if government programs "work." They want to feel secure secure that someone claims to be doing something about a problem.

"Yeah, but still, how can get people to do what I want them to do?" In a free society, people will not, and hence, capitalism does not "work." I do not have a problem with this fact, as I people are not on this planet to serve me, or some "higher cause" called "god" or "society." Freedom is not a means to achieve some "higher" goal of a collective, but as the end result of a government protecting the life, liberty, and property of all individuals.