Welcome to Nature and Liberty, a small voice dedicated to the advancement of individual sovereignty based on the principle of non-aggression, sound economic theory, and a market based approach to the conservation of natural resources.

So often supposed market failure is employed as an excuse for ever encroaching  and all encompassing coercive governmental action. Whether this action is advocated under the pretenses of social equality and justice, economic stimulation and growth, or environmental conservation and preservation, makes little difference, for these ideas are only means to an end. They are only engines of mass approval to justify the real end. The real end is of course the ever expanding role of the Government in all our lives.

After careful consideration and continuing self education and research, I believe the truth is that there is no such thing as a free market failure. I have yet to find an instance where a failure attributed to the market can’t be traced back to an interference on the part of that monopoly of force and decision making we call the Government. Any time this institution interferes with the economy, it not only fails to cure the malady in question but causes other unintended (or perhaps intended) negative consequences as well, in response to which more government involvement is then excused and usually successfully promoted. It’s a cycle of intervention that creates an ever intensifying and confusing array of economic dissonance, from which the sources of negative consequences, with skill, can be painted any color under the sun. In other words, it’s easy to determine where a single rock hits a pond, because you can trace the direction of the waves back to the source, but when several are thrown, the sources are obscured, because the waves from all three impacts interact and mix with each other, and the task becomes much more difficult.

Isn’t Government simply a collection of individuals not unlike Society? Yes, but these two groups of individuals are rewarded very differently for their actions. It is a problem of incentives. In Society, an individual improves his own condition by providing a service that Society may purchase, therefore he has incentive to be productive. In Government, an individual improves his own condition by expropriating or redirecting more wealth from Society, therefore he has incentive to be unproductive. Since the Government has no metric of efficiency, such as the profit/loss mechanism inherent to the free market, it has no disincentive to allow the problem it has been tasked with solving to grow worse to justify the expropriation of even more funds from the general public. In other words, there’s good reason the Government has a habit of perpetuating problems, and when the problems do get worse, Governments invoke patriotism to justify taking away more of your money and your natural rights for their cause. The problem, according to Government officials, is never that Government is performing its duties poorly and inefficiently, or that it has created too big of a socioeconomic footprint in our lives.

Just look at the different ways economic growth (GDP) is measured in Society and in Government. In Society, economic growth is measured by the dollar value sum of all the voluntary transactions occurring in the market in the course of a year. In contrast, the economic growth added by Government is measured by the dollar value sum of how much it has spent over the same period! How ridiculous is it to presume that every dollar the Government spends of expropriated wealth from its citizens is productive? Aren’t voluntary transactions more productive than coercive ones, since both sides of the voluntary transaction perceive a gain? Are coercive transactions productive at all? If I stole money out of your wallet and then provided you a service in exchange, while disallowing you from obtaining the same service elsewhere, would this be productive behavior? What kind of quality can you expect from this service, when you have near zero input into how much money I take from you in the exchange?

Since the Government expropriates wealth from the realm of voluntary transactions, shouldn’t this money subtract rather than add to the growth of the nation when it is spent? I would at least argue that this method of determining economic growth, though not perfect, arrives much closer to the truth. Government spending, whether funded through taxation or inflation, actually disadvantages Society twice: once by the original expropriation, which leaves Society with less wealth, and again by the spending of that money, which distorts economic activity and diverts resources away from the needs of Society in service to the needs of Government. Employing the use of reductio ad absurdum, we can say that if Government spending is additive, rather than subtractive, to economic growth, then why does Government not spend 50 trillion or 100 quadrillion instead of a few measly trillion a year? Isn’t 500% growth better than 1%? Why is it holding out on us? Clearly there is more to the story.

This site will help to identify, clarify, and justify my claims and beliefs above, as well as others, in defense of the real free market, the natural right to individual self ownership, and the drastic minimization, if not outright abolition, of Government in all aspects of life, by drawing upon current and historical events, articles, opinions, books, and personal experiences that I find relevant and important.

I hope you enjoy the site!


Nathan Keller