from The Psychology of Liberty
by Wes Bertrand © 2000, copylefted 2007

The Nature Of Present Government

A prevalent idea in our culture is that governmental and political issues are more complex than issues on the individual level. Yet as we deal with society as a whole, the topics need not become more difficult and the opinions more obscure. Politics is not a realm for only the so-called experts to discuss. We each need a clear understanding of our social context. So at this point, we have to inquire about the nature of government.

In essential terms, any present form of government is a group of individuals that acts as an unsolicited agent of the people in a specific geographic area. This agent performs the duties assigned to it, usually by a constitution and various democratic processes. Typically, government’s duties are derived from a hodgepodge of traditional beliefs that include many unscrutinized philosophical assumptions (which will be explored shortly). Both common and statutory laws provide a formal basis for government’s functioning.

Any government (totalitarian or democratic) postures as the final legal authority in human relationships. Governments determine essentially what people residing within their geographic borders can and cannot do. They attempt to establish certain ethical and legal guidelines for the behavior of their citizens. Yet they often render themselves unable to differentiate ethical issues from legal issues. Oftentimes, they pass and enforce laws that try to restrict or direct behavior—irrespective of whether or not such behavior is, by objective standards, rights-respecting. This is supposedly done in order to keep society “under control” and cater to particular needs.

Actions involve (if only implicitly) moral decisions, that is, decisions that affect or have implications for one’s mental and/or physical well-being. A law that infringes on the rights of the individual is necessarily an attempt to run the life of the individual (i.e., an attempt to direct morality). Thus, criminal acts and governmental laws that infringe on individual rights can be logically viewed as controlling the inherent freedoms of the individual. In contrast, the invaluable activity of exacting justice represents the defense of individual rights. It upholds moral freedoms by preventing injustices.

Governmental control has regularly been viewed as the best way to ensure a civil society. Yet this tends to engender both compliant and rebellious attitudes. As a result, such attitudes lead typically to more regulatory measures, which come to be viewed as appropriate. Fostering a society of enlightened people is quite another matter. Primarily it involves treating human beings with respect (i.e., as their nature demands). Bakunin stated the following about the nature of government:

Its essence consists not in persuasion, but in command and compulsion.... [Government]...cannot conceal the fact that it is the legal maimer of our will, the constant negation of our liberty. Even when it commands the good, it makes valueless by commanding it; for every command slaps liberty in the face; as soon as the good is commanded, it is transformed into the evil in the eyes of the true (that is, human, by no means divine) morality, of the dignity of man, of liberty; for man’s liberty, morality, and dignity consist precisely in doing the good not because he is commanded to but because he recognizes it, wills it, and loves it.30(p.83)

Since childhood, we have been taught political ideas that defy logic in many respects. Possibly these ideas carry with them a secret hope by their disseminators that none will question the system, the system purportedly designed for everyone’s benefit. But we are not “everyone” and neither is anyone else. Regardless of the type of government or country, this is a reliable way to create intellectual dependency. Perfection of collectivistic thinking occurs when we do not desire to realize the nature of our dependency. Lesser perfection occurs when we argue and quibble about political nonessentials and minutiae, while overlooking the main ideas that have contributed to our predicament.

All of us were probably taught to take for granted that coercive government is necessary and proper for people to live together—and to overlook the coercive aspect. Because large populations and advanced economies have so many interactions and business activities, the potential for greater social problems and legal disagreements is augmented. However, we ought not draw the conclusion that we need even more government for things to operate smoothly.

Also, we need to question the idea that a governing body, which supposedly represents the people and their interests, is the best prescription for any society desiring to be civil. As in the book Lord of the Flies, we need to reflect on the nature of humans in relation to government. Briefly, this book is a story about a group of children who get stranded on a deserted island. In order to survive, they deem it necessary to form a kind of government with a designated hierarchy of leadership. Soon the system formed to protect the interests of the group becomes the children’s worst enemy. Horrible cruelty and vicious brutality eventually envelop their social system, until it becomes “every man for himself” and “survival of the fittest.”

Many draw the conclusion from this that somehow, in some way, human nature is flawed, and that the only way order can ever be maintained is by creating a better way of governing people. In this story, as in numerous others, the blame falls on human nature rather than on contradictory ideas. Where did the children get their ideas about devising a system of government? Obviously, they obtained them from the society from which they had been separated, the same social system that their parents and teachers had told them was required for tranquility and peaceful relations. The typical response in defense of “the system” is that in theory it works; we just have to be careful about applying it wrong. But a theory that produces bad results ought to be rejected. Naturally, a contradictory theory will yield bad results.

The popular assumption that a government should preside over civilization arises mainly from the idea that law and order would not exist without government. The underlying premise is that government has the right to determine the fate of people within its boundaries (i.e., to rule over those in a certain geographical area). Let us examine the salient implications of the law and order idea and see how much law and order government provides.

Government is a group of individuals designed by themselves, the people at large (the majority), or both, for the purpose of passing and enforcing laws of the country, state, county, or city. The services provided by government vary from country to country, but at a bare minimum usually include (in concert with headquarters and branch offices) police forces, law courts, and a military. Since government is the sole provider of these services, government holds a legalized monopoly on them.89 So, plainly, government acts as the involuntary agent of the populace. Governments are explicitly designed to deny any competition within their arbitrarily designated political and geographical boundaries. Those who disagree with this state of affairs have no alternative in their particular governed region.

Present and past governments share another key problem. Many of their laws are non-objective—that is, they are not validated by the process of logic and do not follow from the principles that ensure human survival. Since non-objective laws are not based on the method of determining truth, they cannot possibly uphold the fundamental principle of rights. Non-objective laws by definition violate people’s rights.

Every form of government must initiate force to maintain its non-objective laws. Force is permitted not to ordinary criminals (at least in principle), but instead to government itself. One can see what sort of double-standard this sets up in civilization: Governmentally declared criminals—a group consisting of violators of others’ rights as well as nonviolators of others’ rights (declared so by non-objective laws)—are to be penalized for their acts, while government is able to commit similar crimes (albeit on a far greater scale) without a question. Usually if there are any questions, they have little to do with the fundamental contradictions involved.

Probably no political contradiction is worse than the idea that aggression towards others is wrong for criminals but somehow moral and just for government. The foremost enactment of this is the method by which every government is currently able to function: taxation. If taxation were actually voluntary, it would not be a crime to prevent government from taking one’s property (viz., money).

Essentially, government provides services that have not been chosen by the recipients. Chosen services imply voluntary, contractual payment for them. Taxation does not involve voluntary, contractual payment for services rendered. Rather, it involves the imposition of governmental activities on individuals and the requirement of compensation for those activities.

A concrete example is in order. Suppose some people whom you neither know nor have solicited come to your house one day and begin repainting it, say in a different color. In spite of your initial questions about their actions and then your protests and demands for them to stop, they continue until the job is finished. (On the other hand, you could have tried to force them to stop and tried to make them leave. If you had done so, they would likely have responded—if you did not thwart them—by arresting you and locking you in a prison.)

Upon completion, the painters demand payment for their services. Actually, the cost does not really matter—it could even be “free”—because it still involves trespassing and meddling with your property. Nonetheless, they will not leave you alone until they have extracted payment from you. You rightly state that what they have done as well as what they are demanding is preposterous, and it is in violation of your inalienable rights (viz., to property).

Since you refuse to pay, they require you to go to court and face numerous fines and incarceration—on the grounds that you are in violation of their “rights” to your money. After attempting to explain the nature of your case in court and stating intransigently that you will not pay for (or accept) services for which you did not contract, the painters and their loyal subordinates proceed to take some of your possessions or seize your bank account and/or incarcerate you. What is their main explanation? The taking of your property—not to mention your time spent in this episode—is necessary for the common good.

Interestingly, the only “painters” who get by with this sort of theft are those called government. Of course, this means that some individuals are permitted to initiate force against others solely by virtue of the title they hold. Tucker put it this way many decades ago:

In the first place, all the acts of governments are indirectly invasive, because dependent upon the primary invasion called taxation....The very first act of the State, the compulsory assessment and collection of taxes, is itself an aggression, a violation of equal liberty, and, as such, vitiates every subsequent act, even those acts which would be purely defensive if paid for out of a treasury filled by voluntary contributions. How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man’s earnings to pay for protection which he has not sought and does not desire?...To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.30(p.129)

Yet to keep its power, government endeavors to remain immune from accusations of criminal activities in a fundamental philosophical sense (not merely in terms of violating current statutes). Government seeks to retain an unfounded connotation of law and order. Of course, no rational justification can ever be made for this disregard of the facts of reality and human beings’ basic tools of survival.

Imagine the confusion created in the minds of children when they are taught that it is normal to accept contradictions of this magnitude. Soon, to not question the morality and function of government becomes a matter of psychological habit. The role of government is continually thrust into the “not to be questioned” realm of ideas. The terms “morality” and “justice” acquire such tenuous and vague meanings that eventually most minds give up the search for a clear sense of them. Usually what remains is the inarticulate and sometimes overwhelming feeling that something is wrong with society and strange about human relationships.

The words of anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon describe in detail what government has the power to do (depending on the laws it does or does not uphold and enforce). Although Proudhon held some highly contradictory political beliefs himself, his description here is rather timeless. It informs us of our responsibility to never misunderstand the ominous nature of coercive government:

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commended; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue....To be governed means that at every move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered into a census, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized, recommended, admonished, prevented, reformed, set right, corrected. Government means to be subjected to tribute, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of the public utility and the general good. Then, at the first sign of resistance or word of complaint, one is repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued, hustled, beaten up, garroted, imprisoned, shot, machine-gunned, judged, sentenced, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to cap it all, ridiculed, mocked, outraged, and dishonored. That is government, that is its justice and its morality!...O human personality! How can it be that you have cowered in such subjection for sixty centuries?37(p.15)

Probably most people believe that the United States government’s policies should not be included in the majority of these depictions. After all, the United States was the first country ever to devise a bill of individual rights and a constitution of checks and balances. These documents were devised to ensure that government serves and protects people, rather than oppresses them.

As mentioned, the authors of these documents deserve enormous respect for what has been, so far, the greatest political achievement in the history of the human race: the Bill of Rights—even though it has been continually misconstrued and thus depreciated since its implementation.

However, the sort of government that exists presently is far different than the initial U.S. government. As noted by many present advocates of governmental reform, the degree of government’s encroachment on its citizens has greatly escalated over the last 200 years. Men such as Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine would likely be appalled about the present condition of politics. Perhaps they would be stunned to see how their ideas have been twisted, manipulated, and misinterpreted by all the power-hungry bureaucrats who have held political office and lobbyists who have pandered to them.

So, the all-important question arises: Where did it all go so wrong? Logical examination of the Constitution and related political documents enlightens us about the crack in the foundation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In addition to its immediate authorization of taxation on the public, the Constitution grants to government powers that no individual could ever legally possess—on account of their rights-infringing nature. Since aggression in human relationships destroys a rational being’s ability to function, the creation of laws that uphold this subhuman act are inherently flawed, regardless of their intent. Contrary to the Machiavellian principle “The end justifies the means,” the illogical initiation of force nullifies any end sought because it is a self-refuting means.

Again, Democracy, in which the majority rules and implements laws, represents a futile attempt to circumvent the immutable laws of nature. It says, in effect, “Might makes right.” The same applies to a democratically elected Republic such as the United States. Even though it seeks to create “a nation of laws, not of men,” law must be objective in order to uphold individual rights and prevent corruption.

Sanctioned aggression was the crack in the foundation of the Constitution. Once created, the task of securing individual rights became hopeless. “Rights” that were open for amendment to satisfy anyone’s contradictory vision of the just, moral, or needed replaced the absolutism of rights. Because of this, it was only a matter of time for the political system to erode and erase the however benevolent intentions of the Framers.

For the most part, the system of “checks and balances” was, at best, a weak inhibitor of tyranny. However, it did slow the process of decay. The creation of inherent functional inefficiencies and cumbersome decision-making abilities, coupled with usage of common law, restrained the power of the State. Corrupt power was not allowed to run rampant, as in dictatorships. Additionally, valuable policies and various good ideas were able to surface on a large and complex forum of debate. But this system also hindered people’s ability to see the roots of political problems and, hence, discover basic solutions.

Most of the thousands of intricate laws passed from one part of Congress to another, from one legislature to another, from one committee to another, from one debate to the next, from one vote to the next vote, have been merely variations on the same theme——treating human beings in an involuntary manner. Since such laws were non-objective from the start, they would be non-objective at the end when they were enforced. Even when brought to the judiciary system, their objectivity was not typically questioned. Mainly the “legality” of their essence or applications was interpreted (validated or invalidated, upheld or reformed) throughout the considerable array of state and federal courts. A few were given the final stamp of approval or disapproval by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, although popularly held in high regard, has a long record of expedient and arbitrary rulings (majority as well as unanimous) over state laws. Many vague and inconsistent interpretations of constitutional amendments have also been bequeathed to the justice system and to the American public.

All these troubles merely reflect the contradictory nature of non-objective law. Instead of interpret laws from a logical perspective, the courts typically have judged whether or not they conform to the Constitution. Yet something declared “constitutional” may not necessarily be logical, and something declared “unconstitutional” may not necessarily be illogical. The Constitution has been used as a replacement for logical thinking involving adjudication of rights. It was problematic precisely because it did not (nor will it) fully respect the concept of rights. Since the government and its law courts have been, and still are, the largest violators of rights, their authority to make rulings concerning rights should have been held suspect from the beginning.

Although many view it as a contractual agreement between the populace and government, the Constitution of course cannot be considered a valid legal and binding contract. Only a handful of individuals signed the document a couple centuries ago. It certainly cannot have contractual validity for hundred of millions presently. Yet a trust is placed in the Constitution to be an upholder of rights. After all, a populace does need to outline and concretize its laws.

To have objective laws codified and written for people to embrace is helpful as well as necessary. The fundamental question concerns how such laws are established, and by whom. Since only individuals—not a coercive government—can own anything in the strict sense, only they can ensure peace and tranquility in their environment. The property that people own constitutes the domain on which they can enforce whatever personal rules they think are appropriate. Since infringement of the rights of others in this process would be contradictory, rules must involve informed consent; contractual relationships (both implicit and explicit) become the norm.

Property owners and those with whom they contract can therefore maintain law and order. They can devise a system of justice to uphold and protect individual rights—for ultimately, only each individual who understands the meaning of and reasons for rights can uphold them.

Nonetheless, many fervent and passive advocates of the Constitution overlook these observations. In No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Spooner scornfully distinguished three types of constitutional supporters. During his lifetime though, the nineteenth century, the scale of corruption was obviously much smaller:

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes——a large class, no doubt——each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a ‘free man,’ a ‘sovereign’; that this is ‘a free government’; ‘a government of equal rights,’ ‘the best government on earth,’ and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.98(p.16)

The rejoinder might be made, however, about the good intentions and effects of many laws that have been passed and enacted in society. One could say that many laws resulting from the Bill of Rights are both effective and beneficial. Could not, for instance, involuntary servitude laws, free speech laws, gun ownership laws, self-defense laws, and so forth, be viewed as ensuring rights and creating a society of fairness? But this is really epistemological stealing of the concepts of law and rights. Laws are designed to protect rights that we already possess by virtue of being human. Laws cannot create rights. Again, rights cannot be given to us as a privilege or favor, even though all governments that disregard them pretend to.

Since government-provided “rights” are likely to be undermined or even erased as time goes on, they usually are written down and established in law. Of course, such rights are also susceptible to a lot of misinterpretation. The framers of the Constitution were well aware of this dilemma, so they created the Ninth Amendment. It states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Yet, the system supposedly designed to prevent rights from being erased is the same non-objective system that erases them (the image of the fox guarding the chicken coop comes to mind). Moreover, the various “rights” enacted by government are often granted to some at the expense of others.

Law and order are terms associated with government because it has chronically had a monopoly on the particular services catering to law and order. Government has normally been the sole agent for people in matters concerning their liberties. However, the idea of agency implies that one chooses another individual (or group of individuals) to act on one’s behalf and in one’s best interests. Government, being a coercive monopoly of select individuals (placed there by voting procedures), for all practical purposes nullifies the concept of agency.

The individuals in government are not voluntarily selected. Many gain positions through secret ballot (and others are, in turn, hired by them). Basically, an unseen majority selects agents for everyone, and it disregards what the minority desires. Such a process clearly denies the idea of personal contracts. Spooner assessed these practices in the following way:

This is the kind of government we have [speaking of a system of secrecy]; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: We will consent to no Constitution, except such an one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no government to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.(p.30)

If any number of men, many or few, claim the right to govern the people of this country, let them make and sign an open compact with each other to do so. Let them thus make themselves individually known to those whom they propose to govern. And let them thus openly take the legitimate responsibility of their acts.98(ibid.)

Such statements appeal to the self-respect and responsibility of individuals. Most individuals in their private lives generally take responsibility for their actions. For instance, most would wince at the thought of breaking into someone’s home (or bank account) and taking a percentage of his or her possessions. Most would also be repulsed at the thought of clubbing a peaceful person over the head and holding him or her captive on account of not doing what was demanded.

On the other hand, most people do not seriously examine the propriety of various forms of taxation and coercive rules and regulations. In fact, most people steadfastly advocate such actions. Yet ironically, often much time and effort is spent “cheating” on taxes, for instance. This, of course, is where moral uncertainty generates irresponsibility.

For those in government, the matter of self-responsibility is just as vital. Government is by far the largest employer in the United States (not to mention in other countries). It has progressively increased its share of the job market, which definitely makes self-responsibility in the economic realm difficult. Many appealing financial opportunities and employment positions are connected to government, with which the so-called private sector cannot compare or compete. Even so, governmental employees need to be aware of the political contradictions that entail infringement of others’ rights—as well as the deleterious consequences of such contradictions. This would enable them to consider the real alternatives to the present system. To take full responsibility for one’s actions is to pass judgment when and where it is needed.

Self-responsibility relies on the conviction that one is both the voluntary creator and voluntary inhibitor of one’s actions. The correctness of one’s premises should determine whether or not one takes an action. Ultimately, one is responsible for one’s own actions, no matter what another person requests or offers. For instance, to act on a request to commit a crime makes one responsible for it—regardless of the intent or consequences. (Of course, this assumes that one is not brain damaged or mentally crippled in a way that diminishes or incapacitates volitional functioning.) In a trial, however, the level of intent (mens rea) determines the nature of criminal accountability. The perpetrator’s knowledge of the consequences of his or her action and the degree of recklessness or carelessness tied to that knowledge are factors to be considered in a court of law.

The military has provided numerous examples of what can happen when individuals shirk responsibility. Some of the worst improprieties and unspeakable atrocities known to the human race have resulted from following unquestioned “orders from above.” The factors involved in soldiers carrying out their ordered duties are certainly complex. Soldiers rely on contracts of trust in superiors to make competent and legal decisions. Yet such decisions often demand logical justification.

In any job, a person assumes responsibility for the activities performed. Part of one’s job is to become informed, instead of acting blindly. Thus, military soldiers need to be just as knowledgeable about the ramifications of their actions as military leaders.

The nature of justice demands it. This is all the more true in our world’s currently depraved socio-political context. Holding “war machines” accountable for heinousness is nonsensical, because those who take the actions are responsible—as are the persons who give the orders.

In general, government can be used by some as a shield that protects wrong actions. The anonymity of collective force directly diminishes both self-responsibility and personal accountability. Yet wrongdoing is often rationalized. Be it individual or political, it is typically painted in the best light possible——in order to seem either right or unintentional. Persons may try to make themselves oblivious to internal and external signals warning them of contradictory activities.

Those in government are no less human than the rest of our species. They are just involved in the destructive nature of a coercive system. Government really offers a mixed bag of services; some are logical, while some are contradictory. Still, many of the services they offer use retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

Rights-respecting services must be in the range of choice for the individual. But choice is not a concept to which government by nature is friendly. Real and whole people welcome choice. Independent and sovereign minds can think and judge for themselves. Indeed, to consider ourselves capable of making choices on this fundamental level is to resolve many contradictions and internal problems. Such an attitude can only broaden our horizons and expand our possibilities.

Let us explore further what acceptance of coercive government entails. Government decides for citizens what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, through the Constitution and laws of the rulers. Citizens are supposed to be placated by being allowed to vote for these rulers, who in turn appoint their own servants. The implication is that people outside the governmental group are incapable of making important decisions to provide for their well-being—incapable of choosing what is right for them. Most laws will be decided arbitrarily by the governmental group and enforced by them, because only they are capable or good enough to devise such laws. The implication is that people outside the group cannot think for themselves on such matters and draw sound conclusions.

The governmental group then contends that they must deal with people by force in order to achieve ends sought by themselves or by the majority. In other words, people are to be treated as means to other people’s ends, as sacrificial animals—not as human beings. The implication is that people outside the governmental group are not capable of beneficial self-regulation and are unable to function properly in reality—unless they are continually beaten over the head with a club (both figuratively and actually).

Ironically, the Constitution requires governmental officials to include themselves in the system designed for everyone else—the supposed society of incompetents. If all of the above were true, why would those in government contradict their ideas by allowing themselves to also be governed by government? By admitting that they are the same as everyone else, the following query arises: If people need to be governed in principle, then who governs the governors?

Caring about contradictions is not likely to be on the governmental system’s agenda. Spooner stated the following about one of Homo sapiens’ greatest contradictions:

The truth was that the government was in peril, solely because it was not fit to exist. It, and the State governments—all but parts of one and the same system—were rotten with tyranny and crime.(p.72)

...It is clearly time for the people of this country to inquire what constitutions and governments are good for, and whether they (the people) have any natural right, as human beings, to live for themselves, or only for a few conspirators, swindlers, usurpers, robbers, and tyrants, who employ lawmakers, judges, etc., to do their villainous work upon their fellow-men.98(p.80)

Since human beings cannot change their nature, all are fundamentally the same (regardless of how they look, think, or behave); they all possess a rational faculty. What they choose to do with this faculty might make them quite different from each other, but that does not change their fundamental nature.

Fundamentally then, do people need other people to govern them? Do people need to be forced to accept the choices of others concerning their rights? Do people need to be forced to do things “for their own good,” or “for the common good”? Do people need to be treated in an involuntary manner? Do people need to be taken care of, no matter at whose expense? To be sure, the issues here are metaphysical, moral, and psychological, not merely political.

Regardless of our circumstances and of all the possible ways we can be impaired, the principle remains. Forcing peaceful individuals to behave in desired ways is contradictory. Even if we are in a condition that requires physical or mental assistance in order to survive (which incidentally happens to be the case of every child), we have no right to use force. In reality, all the preceding about fundamental human incompetence, weakness, and iniquity becomes self-fulfilling prophecy for those who agree with it, whatever their motivations. Certainly, to treat people essentially as unreasoning animals does not encourage moral behavior. We have already noted that contradictions by nature do not work. They will always be psychologically and existentially destructive.

References (for entire book)

1 Anderson, Terry L. and Leal, Donald R. Free Market Environmentalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991.

2 Aristotle (English translation by Tredennick, Hugh; In Twenty-Three Volumes) XVII. The Metaphysics (Book I-IX). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1975.

3 Bakunin, Michael. God and the State. New York: Dover, 1970.

4 Barnett, Randy E. The Structure of Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

5 Benson, Bruce L. The Enterprise of Law. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990.

6 Binswanger, Harry. The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts. Marina del Ray, CA: The Ayn Rand Institute Press, 1990.

7 ———. Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation. Oceanside, CA: Second Renaissance Books, 1991.

8 Bowker, John. The Meanings of Death. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

9 Branden, Nathaniel. The Disowned Self. New York: Bantam Books, 1973.

10 ———. The Psychology Of Self-Esteem. New York: Bantam Books, 1979.

11 ———. The Psychology Of Romantic Love. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.

12 ———. Honoring The Self. New York: Bantam Books, 1985.

13 ———. How To Raise Your Self-Esteem. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.

14 ———. The Art Of Self-Discovery. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.

15 ———. The Six Pillars Of Self-Esteem. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

16 Burns, David D. Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. New York: Avon Books, 1992.

17 Campbell, Bernard. Human Evolution. New York: Aldine, 1985.

18 Clark, Grahame and Piggott, Stuart (Introduction—The History of Human Society—Edited by Plumb, J. H.). Prehistoric Societies. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

19 Cohen, Ronald and Service, Elman R. (Editors). Origins of the State. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978.

20 Darwin, Charles. The Origin Of Species. New York: Mentor, 1958.

21 Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988.

22 Dawkins, Richard. The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982.

23 ———. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1987.

24 ———. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 1995.

25 ———. Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996.

26 Diamond, Stanley. In Search of the Primitive. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1974.

27 Diringer, David. The Alphabet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968.

28 Dressel, Paul. Facts and Fancy in Assigning Grades. Basic College Quarterly, 2 (1957), 6-12.

29 Eliade, Mircea. Myth And Reality. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

30 Eltzbacher, Paul. Anarchism. Plainview, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1960.

31 Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

32 Ginott, Haim G. Teacher and Child. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

33 ———. Between Parent and Child. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

34 Glasser, William. Schools Without Failure. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

35 ———. The Quality School. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.

36 Gleick, James. Chaos. New York: Penguin, 1987.

37 Guerin, Daniel. Anarchism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970.

38 Heidel, William A. The Heroic Age of Science. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1933.

39 Holt, John. Freedom and Beyond. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1972.

40 ———. Instead of Education. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1976.

41 Hurd, Michael J. Effective Therapy. New York: Dunhill Publishing Co., 1997.

42 Huxley, G. L. The Early Ionians. New York: Humanities Press, 1966.

43 Itzkoff, Seymour W. The Form of Man. Ashfield, Mass: Paideia, 1983.

44 ———. Triumph of the Intelligent. Ashfield, Mass: Paideia, 1985.

45 Kauffman, Stuart. At Home in the Universe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

46 Kaufmann, Walter (Editor and translator). The Portable Nietzsche. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.

47 Keller, Helen. The Story of My Life. New York: Doubleday, Page, & Company, 1927.

48 Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993.

49 Krader, Lawrence. Formation of the State. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

50 Kramer, Joel and Alstad, Diana. The Guru Papers Masks of Authoritarian Power. Berkeley, CA: Frog, Ltd, 1993.

51 Kramer, Samual N. and The Editors of Time-Life Books. Cradle of Civilization. New York: Time, 1967.

52 Lane, Harlan. The Wild Boy of Aveyron. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1976.

53 Leakey, Richard E. and Lewin, Roger. Origins. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1977.

54 Lerner, Eric. The Big Bang Never Happened. New York: Times Books, 1991.

55 Levy-Bruhl, Lucien (Translated by Clare, Lilian A.). Primitive Mentality. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD (New York: Macmillan), 1923.

56 Lhoyld, G.E.R. Ancient Culture & Society Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle. London: Chatto & Windus, 1970.

57 Libecap, Gary D. Contracting For Property Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

58 Lieberman, Philip. The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1984.

59 ———. Uniquely Human. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991.

60 Machan, Tibor R. Human Rights and Human Liberties. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975.

61 ——— (Editor). The Libertarian Alternative. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1974.

62 ——— (Editor). The Libertarian Reader. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Little-field, 1982.

63 Maximoff, G. P. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1953.

64 Mises, Ludwig von. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand, 1956.

65 Montessori, Maria. The Montessori Method. New York: Schocken Books, 1964.

66 ——— (Translated by Costelloe, M. J.). The Secret of Childhood. New York: Ballantine Books, 1979.

67 ——— (Translated by Joosten, A. M.). The Formation of Man. Adyar, Madras 20, India: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1965.

68 Nock, Albert J. Our Enemy, The State. New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972.

69 Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.

70 Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand. New York: Meridian, 1993.

71 Penrose, Roger. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

72 Pfeiffer, John E. The Emergence of Man. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

73 Prabhavananda, S. and Isherwood, C. (Translators). The Song of God, Bhagavad-Gita. New York: Mentor, 1972.

74 Radin, Paul. The World of Primitive Man. New York: Henry Schuman, 1953.

75 Rand, Ayn. For The New Intellectual. New York: Signet, 1963.

76 ———. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet, 1964.

77 ———. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York, Signet, 1967.

78 ———. The Fountainhead. New York: Signet, 1971.

79 ———. The Romantic Manifesto. New York: Signet, 1975.

80 ———. Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: Signet, 1984.

81 ———. Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology. New York: Meridian, 1990.

82 ———. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Dutton, 1992.

83 ———. The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. New York: Meridian, 1993.

84 Reisman, George. The Government Against The Economy. Ottawa: Caroline House, 1979.

85 Rensch, Bernhard (Translated by C.A.M. Sym). Homo Sapiens. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.

86 Reps, Paul (Editor). Zen Flesh Zen Bones. New York: Anchor Books, 1989.

87 Rogers, Carl. Freedom To Learn for the 80’s. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1983.

88 Rothbard, Murray. What Has Government Done to Our Money?. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludvig von Mises Institute, 1990.

89 ———. For A New Liberty. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

90 Sacks, Oliver. Seeing Voices. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989.

91 Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Ballantine, 1985.

92 ———. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.

93 Samenow, Stanton E. Inside The Criminal Mind. New York: Times Books, 1984.

94 Schlatter, Richard. Private Property. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1951.

95 Service, Elman R. Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House, 1971.

96 Sibley, Mulford Q. Political Ideas and Ideologies. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.

97 Spencer, Herbert. Social Statics. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897.

98 Spooner, Lysander. Let’s Abolish Government. New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972.

99 Tannehill, Morris and Tannehill, Linda. The Market For Liberty [located in Society Without Government. New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972.]

100 Tanner, Nancy M. On Becoming Human. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

101 Trefil, James. Are We Unique?. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.

102 Tzu, Lao (Translated by Lau, D. C.). Tao Te Ching. London: Penguin Books, 1963.

103 Wollstein, Jarret B. Society Without Coercion [located in Society Without Government. New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972.]