On the Origins of Value, Strife and Violence

Value exists only in the minds and egos of humans. Without egos to appraise it, nothing has value. Said another way, how valuable something is depends upon the value that competing egos collectively assign to it.

All strife is ultimately anchored in a conflict of values, which is to say a conflict of egos. We all value different things differently, but that alone doesn't lead to conflict. Conflict happens when we insist that other people value the things that we do as much as we do. And vice versa.

Value conflicts can only be resolved via violence (physical or emotional) or via exchange. There are no other options. I can either compel you (via physical force, ostracism, shaming, etc.) to observe my values over your's, or I can induce you to do so by giving you something you value in exchange for your voluntary assent to my values. What I give you could be money but it need not be. It could simply be my agreement to leave you and your values alone in exchange for you agreeing to leave me and mine alone--that is, for each of us to live and let live.

The first approach to resolving value conflicts is coercive. The second approach is voluntary. The first is win/lose. The second is win/win. The first requires intimidation while the second requires negotiation. The first ultimately destroys value while the second grows it--nothing compelled is every truly valued. Value, by definition, must be voluntary.

Governments produce nothing and so have nothing to give in exchange for our assent to its preferred values. Government ever only gets its way by violence or by threat of it. This is true whether the government is a dictatorship or a democracy. A violence endorsed by 51% of the voters is no less a violence.

What am I suggesting? Well, let me be blunt: Whenever we seek to accomplish your aims through legislation or regulation, we are resorting to violence. That violence is only thinly disguised and given a fake patina of legitimacy from voting.

So, before voting, don't ask whether or not you share the value enshrined in the proposed policy or candidate but instead ask yourself this: Would I PERSONALLY be willing to put a gun to my neighbors head and compel him to accept my values on this subject? If the answer is yes, then vote your personal preference. If the answer is no, then have the integrity to vote against your preference so as to honor the more important principle of non-violence.

For instance, I VERY much think that people should be free to surf the Internet without having their traffic patterns monitored and sold to advertisers. That's really, really important to me. But many disagree with me on that. Their values conflict with mine. Am I personally willing to force (via violence or threats of violence) everyone who disagrees with me to adopt my privacy stance? No, I'm not, and so I will not support government actions that mandate privacy. If I want privacy, I'm gong to have to be diligent enough to identify an ISP that contractually guarantees it or else use privacy tools like VPNs and/or TOR.

Is that a hassle? Yes. But nonviolence is often a hassle. Violence is usually the easier option in the short term but has devastating consequences in the long term.