this presentation is a response to a video of walter block discussing the topic of libertarians working for the government (link in the description of this video). i contend that block’s view of libertarians working for government with the intention to undermine it is not consistent with the non-aggression principle.
first, block claim’s that murray rothbard said working in a sector that would have been provided in the free market is consistent with libertarianism. the “net equality of consequences” argument is valid only under a cost/benefit analysis. first, it has to be the exact SAME GOOD provided at the SAME PRICE AND QUANTITY otherwise its a net loss for the tax payer. a libertarian cannot make this argument with the belief that government is an inefficent monopoly spender. for instance if government provides the same/lower quality good at a higher/same price then the service provided by the taxation results in a net loss for the tax payer and gain for supplier or government which is equivalent to a transfer by coercion. to make matters worse there is a deadweight loss due to taxation, monopoly, and subsidy suffered by the rest of society.
but more importantly, even assuming no net transfer of utility, the act of taking from the taxpayer by force still qualifies as aggression since it was not voluntary. therefore rothbard’s argument is not consistent with being a libertarian or the non-aggression principle.
block augments rothbards claim by saying that taking money to teach liberty or undermine the government is ethical. i highly doubt any “rational” libertarian would say that knowingly taking stolen money by providing a service to the thief (or the victim if it wasnt demanded) was compatible with the non-aggression principle. if the money is not given back to the taxpayer in any form other than the original payment or good demanded then the act of providing a service to government is effectively coercing the the tax victim to pay for that service. the possibility that the good provided could contribute to the demise of the taxing entity is irrelevant since it was still involuntary. taking stolen money to teach liberty is effectively stealing money to teach liberty. knowingly using an agent is no different. the fact that the non-aggression principle does not clearly deal with the issue of receiving stolen property shows another weakness of the using nap as a logically consistent morality.
block’s nazi concentration camp guard analogy in which one goes into the business of murdering in order to minimize total murder is also forbidden since the rigidity of the non-aggression principle clearly forbids any aggression regardless of the net result. any rational moral ethic would not punish the person who’s action saved net lives even though an aggression occured since their action was a net good. block’s argument only makes sense using a cost/benefit analysis not restricted by a principle that forbids aggression such as the ego-utilitarian/ accelerationism framework. block’s “ticker tape parade execution” was a ridiculous example of the logical gymnastics libertarians use to reconcile the religious doctrine of libertarian theory with pure reason.
to put block’s argument succinctly, he claims that subsidizing liberty through taxation is ethical. clearly a contradiction when taken with libertarian philosophy.
at the 10:21 mark in the video albert lu talks about how tesla contributes to fiscal collapse by taking subsidies for building “environmental friendly” cars. what lu was describing is egoutism’s strategy of accelerationism which cannot coexist with the of the non-aggression principle.
egoutism and accelerationism
accelerationism is the idea that the government is inherently unstable because it is not a meta-self interested entity. therefore, in simple monetary terms, it consistently takes on projects that do not yield a financial profit, therefore resulting in chronic budget deficits and ensuring its eventual demise. also, the government is an inefficient supplier of goods, consistently providing goods that would never have come to the market (or equivalently providing a combination of inferior goods at higher prices and/or lower quanties). given enough time, its citizens will realize this incredibly high opportunity cost and revolt against this inferior technology. it is an unfortunate feature of reality that people tend to learn through trial and error instead of sound logical theory. it may be impossible to bypass this empirical learning curve of the general population.
therefore, if there is a critical level of debt that collapses the current monetary and government system then all else equal, it would be better to accelerate the process instead dragging out an inevitable fiscal collapse. to do so, an accelerationist will implement LEGAL means to reduce tax revenue and increase expenditures, such as voting for and accepting welfare if qualified.
a complex global banking and debt system (combined with singular events in technology such as nuclear warfare) presents a situation where the critical level of debt can be very high since one can mask insolvency through complex debt mechanisms and accounting fraud.
accelerationism finds the idea of a fiscal collapse appealing since it is a relatively peaceful event with low costs and high benefits. a fiscal collapse of the monetary and state system would be peaceful because international and domestic law enforcement stop following orders when the state’s inability to provide monetary compensation for their services becomes apparent. the lack of enforcement and runaway debt level reaches the point when tax payers will passively stop paying taxes and reject the monetary and banking system. in an active revolt the cost of lives would be much higher and the fiscal loss would not change since the debt due to state promises does not magically disappear. but egoutism carefully endorses limits on the accelerationist strategy consistent with the primary objective of perpetuation of instances of one’s meta-self. in other words dont accelerate the collapse to the point where you jeopardize one’s meta-self.
egoutism goes on further to say that it is moral to redistribute assets from those who support the state (people who buying treasuries and advocate a representative or direct democracy) to those who want freedom from the state and realize its an obsolete technology. to add insult to injury, it only makes sense to use the very same democratic means they provide the accelerationist. this “conscious parasite” will also take measures to prepare for the transition when the fiscal event occurs. this will create a bottle neck effect of the statist meme which egoutism calls a “meme trap”.
since ego-utilitarianism adopts the non-aggression APHORISM it does not preclude accelerationism as a viable strategy toward achieving freedom from the state (weak-libertarianism). this includes the possibility that advocating for things like the drug war and conventional war on the expenditure side may actually be tools to freedom since they bring a quicker fiscal end to the state than merely advocating reducing the revenue side of the income statement of the state.