---

(Scroll down for video version of this article.)

All of life, indeed, existence itself, is an exercise in exchange.

---

There is no activity in all of this world which is not inherently a trade of one good (physical or otherwise) for another. Without scarcity, there could literally be no existence as we know it (how can something be scarce nowhere, and be said to exist somewhere?)

The reason you are an individual is because you are scarce, and your body does not extend forever. The reason you love your lover is because he or she has qualities you perceive as valuable which others do not. The reason you pay for food is because it is not infinite in supply. The reason I made this video was because I deemed SPENDING my time (which could have been spent otherwise) worth the greater value of successful self-expression, and getting "my message" out there. Even this non-monetary reward is a payout.

Every action you take, whether base or refined, is ultimately self-interested.

---

There is no such thing as a "selfless" action, though there is highly refined self-interest. Many would argue that feeding a beggar is a much more refined act than hiring a prostitute for a quick sexual encounter, but both actions are ultimately self-interested, and both offer a reward. When I see the beggar eat, I am happy. I wanted him to eat because I felt bad that he was hungry. I paid for this experience of seeing his belly filled BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD. In a perhaps much less refined sense, when I meet the prostitute, I satisfy a desire as well--if perhaps only an immediate, physical one.

While both of these acts are 100% self-interested (in the case of the beggar we cannot know compassion without first knowing hunger ourselves and not wanting another to experience it, because we don't want to experience it (we know the pain)) feeding the hungry man is likely to be deemed the more refined act, as the payout is more likely to be seen as helping another human being and leaves a lasting feeling of satisfaction whereas the other scenario is less likely to be perceived as producing this result.

Economics finally tells us that it is non-productive and destructive to base a society on theft instead of production.

---

Government officials and "upstanding members of society" ("law abiding citizens") profess to believe this to be true, but continue to legitimize taxation (money taken under threat of violence), licensing (claiming ownership over one's body via restrictions on movement/actions of said body), arbitrary claims on land (creating borders by simply arbitrarily claiming ownership vast swathes of land and by extension the individuals living therein), and the myriad other practices which illegitimately claim ownership over the physical person, property, and/or resources of another human being.

Let us be honest and call this what it is: slavery. As much as it is morally illegitimate for me to mug an old woman in the park, is it illegitimate for state agents to engage in any of the aforementioned activities.

If we truly desire a peaceful society, it is an objective fact that the science of economics must be recognized as the foundation for any legitimate "plan." If we deny that other humans own themselves (possess an independent, nature-conferred highest executive capacity, and claim to their minds and bodies), and support entities such as the state, which claim, under threat of force, to own the bodies and resources of other individuals without acquiring them justly (through homesteading, gifting, or voluntary exchange) then we support a "system" which runs directly counter to reality itself, and can OBJECTIVELY NEVER PRODUCE A MINIMALLY VIOLENT SOCIETY BY VIRTUE OF ITS VERY PRECEPTS (if individuals cannot act according to their independent market proclivities and are not free to acquire unowned resources conflict is potentiated and, indeed, inevitable).

If, however, the nature of reality is honored and recognized as the highest law, supply and demand can be accurately measured, price calculation can be successfully accomplished, and conflict can be minimized by affording each individual market actor the ability to pursue their myriad and various wants, desires, and economic goals via a system of property grundnorms based on the least common denominator and most foundationally atomic unit of all societies--the individual.

If the non-violent individual is denied these natural freedoms, the results are apparent:

---

Mismanaged resources, miscalculated prices, frustration of individual market actors and their unique and unlimited desires, wants, needs, and proclivities, and as a result of all of this: frustration, starvation, violence, and suffering.

Collective groups can never successfully "manage" an economy or market by very nature of their inherent quality of not representing each unique market actor.

How is my free market prescription objectively correct, you say?

---

Well, if you place "minimal violent conflict" in the value position of the socioeconomic equation, the only way to balance this equation is through a system that recognizes the cause of violent conflict (disputes over property) and thus renders a system that is universally applicable to all market actors, and not just a select few called "government."

This is readily testable, and indeed, has been tested and proven time and time again when coercive collectives of the few have attempted to dominate vast swathes of individuals.

Forcing individuals born with independent wants, needs, and desires, to accept those of a regime, government, religion, or otherwise, always potentiates and produces conflict, as we know for a fact no two people have the same exact set of wants, needs, and desires. Indeed, even within each individual, these are CONSTANTLY CHANGING. HOW COULD A SYSTEM RENDERED STATIC EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE BY "COLLECTIVE LAG" EVER BE AS EFFICIENT AS ONE BASED ON PROPERTY NORMS AND THE INDIVIDUAL?

The answer? It objectively couldn't. Don't believe me? Come and stand exactly where I am standing! Or better yet, let's both own that beer in the picture above! ;)

---

tl;dr - Here's the video version of this talk!

---

---

(All photos in this post are original and/or downloaded royalty free from morguefile.com)

~KafkA

---

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)