Health Risks of NOT Being an Anarcho-Capitalist
by Robert Eschauzier
by Robert Eschauzier: How
Is an Austrian Anarcho-Capitalist to Vote This†November?
my annual medical check-up I had an interesting conversation with
my physician. This took place in Canada, where I am spending the
summer months. Dr. John is one of those ever more rare country doctors
who still take time to chat with their patients. The examination
over, he started the conversation.
Dr. John: "Youíre
in great shape. Check in with me again in a year, will you?"
what I like to hear."
Dr. John: "By
the way, how are you getting used to receiving Canada Pension?"
donít get any Canada pension."
Dr. John: "Arenít
you receiving any checks?"
Dr. John: "Donít
they have your address?"
They donít know where I live and I like it that way."
Dr. John: "But
then you wonít get any pension checks."
I donít accept money that has been extorted from others."
Dr. John: "But
you had to pay into it all these years. Youíre entitled to it."
I may be legally, but ethically? No way. Having been robbed by some
goons operating as the "Government" in the past does not
now give me moral license to rob others, especially if it involves
using as my proxy another set of goons who use the same statist
Dr. John: "Boy!
You appear to live by a set of exceptionally well defined and rigorously
yes, John. I try. I donít always succeed, but with decades of practice
Iím getting better at it every day."
Dr. John: "Hmmm,
that helps explain at least in part why you are in such good shape."
How is that?"
Dr. John: Some
medical studies have shown how people who appear to live "highly
principled" lives are noticeably healthier emotionally and
physically than the general population. [Who merely follow a set
of external rules.]
Now that set
me to thinking; about the huge difference between principles and
are developed internally through logic and objective reasoning.
Principles motivate me to voluntarily do the things that I know
are good and right. Well defined principles (e.g. non-aggression)
are absolute, not subject to negotiation or debate. Principles tend
to be quite simple, often requiring no more than one or two words
to be expressed without ambiguity. Principles are to philosophy
what natural laws like gravity are to physical nature.
live by principles have in doing so acquired an internal (moral)
compass to guide them in all decisions about right vs. wrong. Having
full confidence in this compass, they tend to easily develop the
discipline to use it constantly in daily life. Rarely will they
need more than half a dozen principles to make up the entire compass.
(aka "laws") are externally and arbitrarily developed
by others. Rules coercively compel me, through force or threat of
punishment, to involuntarily do the things that someone else
deems good or right. Rules are arbitrary, frequently subject
to negotiation and endlessly debatable. Rules tend to be extremely
complicated, usually requiring many lengthy paragraphs and highly
convoluted language for their definition, resulting in massive ambiguities.
Man made rules and laws are to philosophy what weather is to a solo
sailor in the South Pacific.
live only by rules are essentially rudderless. They have little
or no internal ability to distinguish right from wrong. They mostly
distinguish only legal from illegal. Problem is, there are literally
hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations. Having no or limited
confidence in their knowledge of all these rules, they rarely develop
a consistent discipline and instead follow or break on an ad-hoc
basis the rules they are aware of, living in constant fear of error.
As a matter
of fact, all important principles appear to be implanted in our
DNA already. Watching young children at play one can readily see
how they know them instinctively or, failing that, learn them very
quickly on their own in play. The horror of the "public"
education system and of (most?) organized religions is that the
people running these organizations successfully brainwash most people
into believing that they are unable to develop on their own a set
of meaningful principles to live by; that instead they must allow
the academic, clerical and political elites who operate under the
color of these institutions to impose on them endless rules to live
by, regardless whether these conflict with any objectively good
While the elites
may succeed in conditioning people on the conscious level, this
is not so when it comes to the subconscious. Subconsciously the
vast majority of people know the truth contained in key principles,
no matter how much brainwashing they have been subjected to. I defy
anyone to show me a man or woman who does not on some level agree
that a principle such as "non-aggression" is good. To
a man, every soldier I have ever asked has said that "You Shall
Not Kill" is a good and valid "Christian commandment"
to live by, only to follow that admission up with an immediate claim
that he is exempt from this commandment under government law and/or
by ecclesiastical dispensation.
since "we" have God exclusively on "our" side
the commandment still continues to apply to the enemy. How convenient
for "we" that the bible has reduced the non-aggression
principle to a mere 10 commandments or external rules; ones which
can be conveniently modified to suit the circumstances of the day.
Just like the US Constitution. There is only one problem and it
is huge. Our intrepid soldierís subconscious knows different. His
subconscious knows with absolute certainty that it is WRONG to kill
another who has not threatened him. The subconscious knows no rules.
It relies exclusively on principles. There is no fooling it!
conflicts, which evolve as described above between a principled
subconscious and a less principled conscious mind which knows only
rules, will at a minimum result in elevated levels of stress. That
this stress will in many cases contribute to the development of
physiological health problems (obesity? heart disease?) in some,
psychological health issues (marital breakdown? schizophrenia?)
in others or combinations of both should come as no surprise. It
makes perfect if horrible sense that suicide has recently been reported
to be the second most common cause of death among U.S. military
Ingesting Statist Rules Can Be Hazardous To Your Health.
The above may
seem like hyperbole, but recent discoveries in the field of neuroscience
prove that for the physical brain change is not only possible, but
change is actually the rule rather than the exception. Our brain
is wittingly or unwittingly being continuously shaped by our conscious
and sub conscious minds. And it's really just a question of which
influences we're going to choose for our brain, principles or rules.
is the core principle which supersedes all others. Austrian Economics
is the behavioral science which proves that Anarcho-Capitalism
is Non Aggressionís only viable model for a social organization.
Refer to them as the three legs of liberty if you like. To live
a long healthy life, make these three yours in every possible way,
thereby bringing your subconscious and conscious minds into perfect
alignment. And yes, please by all means proselytize, especially
to those you hold dear. However, the best way to teach non-aggression
is to embody it. Not to teach it explicitly, but simply to be it,
and it's through the being that the individuals in the vicinity
of that person who's exuding non-aggression will implicitly understand
and be affected by it and will learn from it.
For those who
are interested in hard science research being done in the area of
healthy thinking, here are some fascinating interviews by Krista
Tippet with neuroscientist David
Richardson, Buddhist monk Matthieu
Ricard and founding director of the Center for Mindfulness in
Medicine, Health Care and Society at the University of Massachusetts
Medical School Jon
[send him mail] gives
allegiance to no state. He lives and works wherever opportunity
and freedom beckon, these days that sadly means mostly outside the
USA. A life-long entrepreneur, he considers himself an "autarchist,"
meaning that he views society/nature as a self (auto) regulating
arrangement, rather than a non (an-) regulating (chaotic) one. Since
discovering LRC and Mises.org about ten years ago, he has been a
voracious if informal student of Austrian economics.
2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part
is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.