There are some questions I get that are so common, I thought I'd lay them out there and try to get them answered as cogently as possible. If you have a question you would like to submit, please feel free to add it as a comment. I'll consider it as honestly as I can. I don't think there's really any limitation except that I would appreciate it if your question is an honest one too. But humor is always welcome.
I also revisit the answers as often as I can to make sure they are up-to-date with my understanding. This means I may even add or remove a single word to flush out a more full understanding as I go.
Q: So why is the name of your blog "inertia?"
A: I started identifying myself as inertia since 1992. Before that, I was just "Q" when posting online. But "online" wasn't the internet. It was WWIVnet (that's right, modems and BBS). I had to stop using Q because it was only one character and most online systems needed three letters.
Q: But isn't inertia a property of matter referring to a static state of being?
A: Yes. And I can see the negative connotation. But accelerating forever can be bad too. I have an inertial frame of reference that changes over time, just like you. My goal is to discern between the philosophical equivalent of real forces and pseudo-forces.
Q: With an online name like "inertia," do people ever think you are a black female?
A: It has happened.
Q: And what does the Ⓐ³ mean?
Q: So Anthony, are you an anarchist or something?
A: If by "anarchist" you mean someone who is interested in uncompromising liberty based on a specific set of principles, yes. But I find most people assume the word "anarchy" refers to "total chaos." I don't hold that definition but since a lot of people operate with that assumption, I refer to myself as a "Classical Liberal."
Q: Aren't anarchists simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats?
A: Yes, they believe that "the best government is that which governs least," and that which governs least is no government at all.
Q: So what exactly is wrong with government?
A: Government provides services under thread of violence.
Q: What do you mean by "threat of violence?"
A: If you refuse services offered by government, you will die.
Q: But I know people who refuse government services and they aren't dead. How do you explain that?
A: They refused the service but the still had to pay for it.
Q: Ok, so you just don't like taxes, is that it?
A: Correct.
Q: Well, aren't you a Christian? How do you resolve this apparent conflict of world views?
A: Very simple. Only Jesus Christ (who God the Father raised from the dead) is my ruler, not imperfect men.
Q: So you're a bible thumper?
A: Yes, but only to people who identify themselves as adherent to God's Word. So if you don't believe it, why would I ever hold it against you? Not my job.
Q: How about ecumenism, are you into that?
A: Between denominations, probably. But between religions and philosophies, no. Of course, it depends on the scope and context.
Q: Isn't being a Christian in conflict with your political beliefs, in light of Romans 13:1-7?
A: Not at all. See my blog post by that title.
Q: But didn't Jesus pay taxes?
A: As near as I can tell, the only account of Jesus paying taxes had to do with a buddy who agreed to pay them (Matthew 17:24-27).
Q: So how is government supposed to get money for these services without taxes?
A: Like any other business that wants to offer services. Voluntarily.
Q: But then it would be no different from a business, right?
A: Correct.
Q: But businesses screw people. Don't we need an impartial body to provide certain essential services without profit motive?
A: Good businesses do not screw their own customers. Government is not impartial. If any body can be perfectly impartial, that would be utopia.
Q: Ok, government is not perfect and never will be. But isn't an impartial government an easier goal than fair businesses?
A: I disagree. Profit motive fosters fair businesses as long as there is competition to keep it in check. But government undermines competition by granting itself monopolies.
Q: Businesses get monopolies too. I can see abolishing government monopolies, but how do you abolish private monopolies?
A: Private monopolies are typically established by government. Without government, private monopolies would be rare.
Q: So in those rare situations where private monopolies can occur, are you in favor of government brokering the industry?
A: No.
Q: So what do you do in those situations? How do you propose a private monopoly get busted up without government?
A: I refuse to look to government for a solution to this rare, mostly theoretical possibility. There's too much at risk to go down that road. Once government busts up a private monopoly, it'll move on. Innovation is a better approach.
Q: Innovation? So you don't have a specific solution to private monopoly than innovation?
A: If I had a specific solution that didn't involve force, I would go into business for myself, bust the private monopoly, and become wildly rich. If government does it with force, it stifles legitimate, innovative solutions like that.
Q: But don't private monopolies need to at least be regulated?
A: No, regulations result in unintended consequences, false security, and typically are what help monopolies form in the first place.
Q: Isn't that a little circular?
A: Not really. Regulations are supposed to prevent one set of problems but spawn yet other problems. You end up with a huge mess. That's all I'm asserting. Let's let the free market work instead of endless regulations.
Q: Are you one of those Ron Paul guys?
A: I admit that I used to be a "Ronulan" (aka Ron Paul fan). But I have moved on. There is no doubt that Dr. Paul is the Champion of the Constitution. But I now see the US Constitution in a different light.
Q: A different light? That seems ominous. What do you mean by that?
A: At this point, I usually quote Lysander Spooner: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
Q: But doesn't Spooner's quote really mean we just need to vote the right people in office?
A: No. Since the nature of people will be static, and they are bent on abusing power, no law or constitution or anything else that consolidates power, even into three branches, will ever perpetually refrain people from abuse of that power.
Q: Ok, I think I have you figured out now, Anthony. Are you one of those Ayn Rand fans?
A: Not really. I would classify myself closer to Thoreauvian than Randian. But I do think Rand was misunderstood. Specifically, I think greed is a good thing.
Q: Wait, greed is a good thing??
A: I'll explain what I mean in a future article. But for now, please understand I don't condone either unethical behavior nor utilitarianism when I say greed is a good thing. At the same time, I also think greed can be a sin.
Q: If you think greed is a sin, does that mean government has a right to tax and regulate it?
A: No. Don't you know two wrongs don't make a right? Anyway, I don't trust people to estimate whether another person is too greedy. Estimation of greed is a personal matter.
Q: Anthony, you seem sort-of hardcore/radical/extreme/ridged. Why is that?
A: How far would you go to protect your children from threat of violence? Why stop short when it comes to criminals writ large (government).
Q: What about roads/streetlights?
A: I'll write an article about this too. But it's actually a common question. In fact, it means that the notion has broken through some cognitive dissonance on some level.
Q: This is just your utopia, right?
A: No. Utopia implies that everything would be fine and dandy. It also implies that humans would change their nature. I don't expect either.
Q: Is everything "black and white" to you?
A: Everything? No, I wouldn't go that far. But if you sit down and try to actually understand the world around you, certain shades of gray do begin to fall away over time.
Q: Can you name one thing you consider a shade of gray?
A: Rockey-Road (ice cream); I am rather ambivalent on that topic.
Q: You misspelled "Rocky-Road."
A: I'm a terrible speller. And that's not a question.
Q: Do you mean to say you could take it or leave it (Rocky-Road)?
A: Yeah. It's chocolate, which I like, but there are marshmallows, which I don't like. And some types seem to have stale nuts. Depends on my mood, I guess.
Q: You don't like marshmallows?! Who doesn't like marshmallows?!
A: Well, I mean, they don't completely repulse me. I just don't care for them.
Q: Can you name even one society that was able to last any amount of time without a government?
A: Not being able to name one doesn't imply it can't happen. Anyway, wouldn't people before the US was formed ask the same thing about self-government? If the US was able to exist with a government of less than 1% of GDP, how was that really different from 0% in day-to-day life?
Q: So it's never happened, what makes you think it'll ever happen?
A: I didn't say it never happened. I cite sectors like the airlines or any area before government ever tried to get into these sectors of the free market; the Wright brothers put planes in the sky with bicycle parts. They didn't have regulations or any semblance of government force behind them. They were in a state of complete aeronautic liberty, limited only by the laws of physics, aided only by innovation. They couldn't force their contraption to stay aloft by legislative fiat. I see it as an example of contextual anarchy. And their innovation paid off. And that's how complete liberty usually happens. In pieces. Usually about 20 years before regulations come along.
Q: You seem to have an answer for everything, don't you?
A: Pretty much.
Q: Have you ever been wrong?
A: Sure I have. And some of my blog articles are proof. But I leave them there to help me remember my mindset and learn from my mistakes.
Q: Ok, I've been convinced by some of what you say. What do you propose we do about it?
A: At the very least, read more. Action is important but not mindless action. I recommend joining the counter-economy.
Q: Anthony, what about this new (tea party, perfect candidate, plan of action, other magic bullet) movement?
A: Here is my standard answer: I don't really think [proposed magic bullets] are going to amount to any real change. If they are extremely lucky (which I doubt) they might succeed in getting more republicans elected that will continue to hold the status quo slightly longer than the democrats will, but overall everything will continue to move in the wrong direction i.e. larger government, corrupt government, outrageous taxes, corporate and social welfare, indiscreet military involvement around the globe and on and on and on. Frankly, I think most "Christian" politicians don't understand the meaning of the word, and the ones that do sign up for the republican party and you vote for them because that's what Christians and patriots do. I definitely feel the system is beyond repair. Even the most conservative of conservatives holds positions that are completely opposed to those of the constitution and the founding fathers, if that ever mattered. Smoke and mirrors.
Q: I want to understand the voluntary society you're always talking about. Is there an article you've written that explains this?
A: Yes. Please consider my article "Understanding the Voluntary Society."
No tags for this post.
