Blake

“It must be noted that the non-aggression alone can never be the starting point in justifying moral behavior or serving as a fundamental principle of ethics. There must be a justification of the non-aggression principle before such a case can be made. The very implication of the term “principle” implies that non-aggression serves as the foundation for a system of ethics, which it cannot be. It is certainly not an axiom since it is not a self-evident truth.”
― Daniel Alexander Brackins, Private Property, Law, and the State

“The repeal of laws as a means to roll back the state is not unjustified. For example, there is no coercion against those who would pick our pockets for “free” healthcare or education, rather it is more so an act of self-defense. As such, we are free to use the state’s political apparatus to further a platform against aggression, democracy, and egalitarianism, while supporting property rights.”
― Daniel Alexander Brackins, Private Property, Law, and the State

“Men do not live in perfect harmony with each other. Rather, again and again conflicts arise between them. And the source of these conflicts is always the same: the scarcity of goods. I want to do X with a given good G and you want to do simultaneously Y with the very same good. Because it is impossible for you and me to do simultaneously X and Y with G, you and I must clash. If a superabundance of goods existed, i.e., if, for instance, G were available in unlimited supply, our conflict could be avoided. We could both simultaneously do ‘our thing’ with G. But most goods do not exist in superabundance. Ever since mankind left the Garden of Eden, there has been and always will be scarcity all-around us.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline

“Any system of ethics must account for scarcity. If it doesn’t, humanity would perish due to misallocation of finite resources, including one’s own body.”
― Daniel Alexander Brackins, Private Property, Law, and the State