Statism aims at destroying property.  This means the state owns the means of production; or the state controls production and terms of private property are retained.  This is socialism or fascism, but the terms are hardly ever used correctly.  Statism is socialism plus fascism.  I use statism because it’s almost always some combination of the two.  The combination might differ, but rarely in history has it been one or the other.  Whatever it’s called, its statism and the philosophy is to destroy property.

I’m not contesting the need for a legal system and some measure of coercion.  Those who do not respect the property of others will have to be punished.  I want property and reject all measures to abolish property.  Abolishing property requires violence, statism is violence, there’s no way around that.  I challenge someone to explain statism that isn’t violence.  Statism has made conflict and violence perpetual.  This concerns all classes politicians divide us into.  As Nietzsche said, “A politician divides mankind into two classes, tools and enemies.”  Which are you?

Everyone wants to live at the expense of everyone else, Bastiat called this the great fiction.  The vagueness of ideas pushed is disguised contempt.  Cries for equality can never be satisfied.  I’m not talking about equality of law, I want that, and we would have that if property was respected. Assume all property is confiscated and then distributed evenly.  What next?  Looks, brains, athletic ability, etc., there is no stopping point.  Assume all property is confiscated and distributed evenly, after one transaction, property is then unequal again.  There is absolutely no way we can achieve equality.  We’ve established equality would have to be achieve by violence.  How do they account for the difference in geographical region?

I understand people have different views and we may disagree on a lot.  Many may disagree with what is written above.  Why do people miles apart have to worry about an election going on in another’s district?  Why can’t one town prefer one policy and another town another policy?  Just because you don’t want to live under another’s policies you may consider draconian, doesn’t mean you don’t want to trade with them.

Currently, the politician is voted into power by having more votes than the other.  Then, a one size fits all policy is set for the entire country.  This has aptly been called libido doninadi—the lust to dominate.  Why should a town in California care about an election in Alabama and vice versa?  Why should California pick the policy to live under for Alabama and vice versa?  These states were picked nearly at random.  The only criteria was the geographical region.  The same can be said for any two states, even any two towns in the same state.  I hope by now the reader can see this system is ridiculous, the Founders did.

One social unit can have trade barriers and see what happens.  Another can have high taxes, paper money, and any policy they’d like to implement, and see what happens.  These policies will serve as a learning experience for the other social units.  If policy A is so great, it might get adopted.  Others may be morally opposed to it and may not adopt it.  The more decentralized the better.  I can’t say how many social units there may be, nobody can tell you, outside of an omniscient being.  Just like nobody can tell you what the population or temperature of the earth should be, but this article isn’t about either of those.

P.S.:  If property is distributed, that means it was stolen first.  If it is to be distributed, that means it is to be stolen. Property is earned from: the first user taking it out of a state of nature, traded for, and/or gifted.