Rebranding Liberty with ‘Live and Let Live’

2021-08-09 · Guest: Marc J. Victor (Attorney and founder of Live and Let Live) · 52:29

Marc J. Victor on the Live and Let Live movement

Bob Zadek interviews attorney Marc J. Victor about his “Live and Let Live” movement, which seeks to rebrand libertarian principles through a focus on non-aggression and aspirational moral values. They discuss the application of these principles to taxation, gun control, and social welfare, distinguishing between legal requirements (non-aggression) and moral encouragements (voluntary kindness).

Topics: Libertarianism, Live and Let Live Movement, Non-Aggression Principle, Taxation, Gun Control, Natural Rights, Moral vs. Legal Rules, Wealth Transfer

Speakers: Bob Zadek, Marc J. Victor

Introduction to Political Philosophy [00:21]

Bob Zadek: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio. Thank you so much for listening this Sunday morning. We are this morning and always the show of ideas, never once the show of attitude.

What’s wrong with our political philosophy in America? Do we have any founding principles left? If—are there principles in terms that set forth the relationship amongst us citizens, one as against the other? And are there principles, core principles, easy-to-understand principles that will describe the appropriate relationship of us Americans collectively and our government, and indeed of all people on earth and their government? And if there are principles, are there principles we all can agree upon?

The answer to that is emphatically yes. There are—even though the country perhaps, it has been said, has never been more divisive. That’s not true. We’ve had periods in our history when we have been far more divisive than now. But we have plenty of divisiveness and disagreement to go around today. Let’s be sure we understand that. But are there principles that, despite the apparent gaps in how we view our relationship to our government and to each other, even though there are huge gaps, there are areas of common ground?

Introducing Marc Victor and “Live and Let Live” [02:52]

Bob Zadek: And this morning’s show, I will, with the help of my guest, I will try to point out: yes, there are in fact core principles we all can agree upon. And once we have that toehold in principles we can agree upon, then we can build on those principles and peel away the areas of disagreement, and agreement will grow as a result.

To help us nail down those principles, I’m happy to welcome to the show this morning attorney Marc Victor. Marc is a practicing attorney in Arizona and long ago has committed his personal life and, to a substantial degree as you will learn, his professional life to helping us find and promote those principles we all have in common. So I pride myself on this show of having a diverse audience: people on the left, people on the right, people in the middle, and people who are nowhere. I’m happy to welcome them all to the show. And no matter where you fit in the political spectrum, I guarantee you will agree with almost everything that will be said on this show for the next hour. You didn’t even know you’d find such agreement, but you will.

To help us understand these founding principles, to help us build a toehold in agreement and to start to fend off disagreement and divisiveness, I’m happy to welcome to the show Marc Victor. Marc is the founder of the Live and Let Live—who can oppose that?—Live and Let Live movement. He is, as I said, a practicing attorney in Arizona, and his law firm does not have his name as most law firms do, but rather his law firm is far more descriptive of what they do. His law firm is known as Attorneys for Freedom. Marc, welcome to the show this morning.

Marc Victor: Hey, Bob. What a pleasure to be on your show and what a nice introduction. And I certainly agree with every word you said.

Bob Zadek: That’s a wonderful way to start. It gives me goosebumps, Marc. Thank you for saying that. Now, Marc, I mentioned the word “principles” often in my introduction to you and introduction of the topic to the audience. So let’s start with the principles, and then we will—once the principles are established, and as I said, the principles are not those which are principles as be positive to which everybody, I dare say, can agree—and then we will apply the principles and show how the application of these principles make disagreement simply go away or, at very least, help us understand precisely why there is disagreement. So Marc, as you love to do, start with the principles and the principle that you have been so successful in promoting both in our country and, as you start, around the world.

Defining the Principle: Legal vs. Moral Rules [05:41]

Marc Victor: Yeah, thanks for that—those comments. I think it is very, very important that we start from principle, right? Because if we can get agreement on the fundamental principle, well then we have something that we can hook onto and we can reason from that principle. So the principle, of course, that we’re talking about here goes by many different names. We call it “Live and Let Live.” I mean, like you say, who could disagree with that? But it’s been called—the same exact principle’s been called other things in different contexts. In fact, in the book I’m writing, I say that this principle could also be referred to as maybe the Golden Rule, right? Treat others how you would have them treat you. Or you might just simply say, “Look, let’s agree to disagree.” This encompasses the same type of an idea. Or “You’re in charge of you and I’m in charge of me.”

It’s sort of the idea, if you will, that begins with the notion that we’re all—really, we’re all brothers and sisters. We’re all equal. Nobody’s in charge of anybody else. We all found ourselves here on the planet and we take the position, and I think all reasonable people do, that you own yourself. I mean, that body that you have, that’s your body. Now, of course, I’ll be quick to point out if we’re talking about minors or somebody who’s not competent, okay, well then that’s different, right? You’re not competent to sort of exercise decision-making control over your own body. But assuming you’re a competent adult—and of course we have ways to figure this out, we’ve been doing this for many hundreds of years in our country and longer than that in other places—and so if you’re a competent adult, then you should be in charge of not just your body, but the things that flow from that: your property that you’ve peacefully acquired, your money, which indeed is your property, and your time. This is your life. This is what you own.

So the principle that everything else that I talk about certainly in the political world, that everything emanates from, is what we call “Live and Let Live”—the idea that you’re in charge of yourself. The other very, very important concept that I think we libertarians forget to mention, and maybe we just assume that people understand and agree with, is this concept that there’s different kinds of rules in the world. There are legal rules and then there are moral rules or ethical rules. And these are qualitatively different types of rules. And they’re important to understand the difference because, you know, a legal rule, if you violate a legal rule, well, society says we’re going to do something to you. There’s going to be some kind of formal consequence for violating that rule.

Moral rules, on the other hand—and I’ll be quick to point out they’re just as important, we need moral rules, we should talk about them and think about them and offload them—but the difference here is if you violate an ethical rule or a moral rule, if you will, well, you know, people may not be happy with you. They can maybe shun you or refuse to do business with you or something. But society doesn’t put a formal consequence. We’re not going to lock you up and put you in jail or fine you or something like that. That’s an important enough difference that we’ve got to be very clear in our minds which type of rule that we’re talking about.

And I think, you know, for people who look at libertarians and when libertarians say things like, “You know, I might find prostitution being immoral. I don’t think people should do that. I maybe would try to discourage people from doing that. However, at the same time, I think it ought to be legal,” well, they think that there’s a statement here that’s in contradiction. And until people understand that this is not a statement that puts someone in a contradictory type of a position, then we’re not going to get anywhere. So we’ve got to be very clear about the difference between a legal rule and a moral rule.

So Live and Let Live sounds great, but I can hear the people already smirking out there, Bob, and they say, “Well, it sounds great, but the devil’s in the details.” And of course this is true, right? Everything has to be interpreted. So once you get agreement or once I do on this sort of principle, Live and Let Live, the question now becomes, “Okay, well what the heck does this mean?” Well, the first thing I think we can say about it is, you know, if you’re being an aggressor, right? If you’re hitting somebody over the head, you’re certainly not acting in conformity with this principle of Live and Let Live.

The Definition of an Aggressor [09:40]

Marc Victor: So one thing we know we can rule out and we can say is if you’re being an aggressor, you’re definitely not living in accordance with Live and Let Live. But as we lawyers like to do, you’ve got to break that down as well. And I think we can do a pretty good job here. I mean, what’s an aggressor? Okay, somebody who initiates force against another person or their property, right? Think the person who commits an assault on another person or the thief who maybe takes someone’s property without their permission. That’s being an aggressor. That violates the Live and Let Live rule.

Somebody who also uses fraud or coercion to separate somebody from their property, these things as well become—we put them in the aggressor category. And then finally, the last category that I like to talk about here is the person who does something that places another person at what we like to call a substantial risk of injury or harm. You don’t get to put other people in positions where, you know, their lives are at risk or something like that. So if you can refrain from doing that, we like to say then, being an aggressor, well then you should be left alone, basically to run your life however you like. And if you do violate that rule or principle, the Live and Let Live principle, we like to say we should do everything we can to stop you from doing that. And if you’ve already done it, we should give you a scrupulously fair trial to figure out if you did it or not. But if you did, well, we can do something to you. And that’s basically the principle laid out simply as I can.

Applying the Principle to Government and Taxation [11:19]

Bob Zadek: Now let’s—let’s drill down. First important conclusion that comes from that principle is that it applies equally to government as it does to the individual. So once we conclude that it is improper to take somebody’s property against their will at force, once we conclude that is both immoral, as Marc said, but not directly relevant—but not only is it immoral, but it violates a—the core principle of Live and Let Live. You can’t take somebody’s property just because you have a gun and they do not. Once we acknowledge that principle, then we apply it and we say, “Hmm, what about the government?” And let’s apply it to something tangible: Social Security.

So now the government, through taxation, is taking our money, use of force, for the sole purpose of giving it to somebody else. How does something as—as generally accepted as Social Security, how does that fit? Well, it doesn’t fit so nicely. Well, one would then react, as you are learning about the Live and Let Live principle, you then say, “Aha, Marc, I guess you’re against taxation. Well, how does government work?” Well, not quite.

The Justification for Limited Taxation [13:01]

Bob Zadek: And Marc, let’s just explain to our listeners how the Live and Let Live principle, which says government should behave under the same rules as individuals must, how we then can have taxation, how we can accept taxation. And I guess I’ll start, Marc, and then turn it over to you, is that there’s a very easy justification. It is that governments are formed in order, if you accept founding principles, simply in order to help us be protected against those who would violate those principles. Once we accept the principles of Live and Let Live—don’t take somebody’s property under force, don’t harm them—once we accept those principles, now how do we enforce them, or do we just live in a jungle?

Well, we each can carry guns and armaments and the mighty shall inherit the earth and all that, but that’s not the way we want to live. So we appoint government to protect our rights for us, so we don’t have to do it ourselves. That is—it’s an activity that you simply cannot do on an individual basis. You could, but who wants to live in that society? So we do it collectively through government. Well, government has to have the wherewithal, so government has to be able to raise money. And one would presume that everybody is willing, more or less—the amount may vary—but people are willing to put money into the pot for the mutual protection. Nobody would really object to that. So therefore, taxation is really giving money by consent to achieve a common good we all agree, which is to protect us.

Now, where it all breaks down is: what if government wants to tax you for another purpose, like to run the Social Security Administration? Well, now the principle is not to protect us, the principle is simply to give your money to somebody else. And now taxation for that purpose fails. So there is a rule for taxation, just like common defense against foreign—those who would do us harm from other countries. So there are—we can agree on principles, the Live and Let Live principles, and we are willing to put money into the common pot to protect those rights that we own as citizens. So taxation certainly has a home in the Live and Let Live principle, but the government taking our money for another purpose doesn’t pass the Live and Let Live test. Now Marc, supplement, correct, or comment on how taxation, which in the first instance we hear some people say taxation is theft—I say that’s wrong and simplistic. It’s only theft if we don’t consent, and of course we consent by implication to having the government protect us from others. So if you would like to, I invite you to supplement the application of the Live and Let Live principle to our acknowledgment that it is appropriate for government to collect our money for those common purposes.

Marc Victor: Yeah, I think, Bob, you covered a lot of ground, and I think it’s important to maybe go just a tad slower through some of this material because I think it’s very important that, you know, people understand. And so for starters, I think that probably some people will say, “Hey, Marc, you kind of pulled a quick one here by saying there’s just this difference between legal and moral.” But even these ideas of not being an aggressor, this emanates from sort of a moral concept. And so it’s not really quite as clean as you say.

And I think there’s a very good criticism here, or at least an observation. I think it’s fair to say that really what we’re talking about with this principle and calling it the law is to say that we’re taking what you might observe to be the least common denominator of moral systems. I mean, find a morality that says it’s okay to punch somebody in the face or steal their property or something. I think you’d have a very hard time doing that. So I like to say that the law really is what we might call the least common denominator of moral systems. It’s what reasonable people can agree on. It’s, in fact, it’s what it means to be reasonable. Reasonable means you can be reasoned with, which means we’re using words and not force.

If you’re in favor of aggression, which is what it actually means to disagree with what I’ve said thus far—to say, “No, Marc, I think it’s okay to be an aggressor”—okay, this is being unreasonable in my view. And then I think that you started down a very good road, Bob, when you said this principle, it should apply to everybody. And I think this is an important place to just pause for a second and say, “Look, these crazy notions that we have still lingering in 2021 here, things about racism and things about being upset with other people because of immutable characteristics, we’ve got to get past this stuff if we’re ever going to get to a peaceful world.”

And so we should say, “Look, this Live and Let Live principle, it applies to everybody.” We don’t care if you’re what color your skin is or where you were born or what songs you sing or who you love or whether you’re male or female or rich or poor, tall or short, whatever. It applies to everybody. And then further than that, I think it’s very important to observe that it applies to people even if we form a group, right? I mean, Bob, if you and I get together and we form some group, we don’t magically get the ability to start becoming an aggressor now and think that that’s—it’s okay to violate the rule. So once we agree that groups should apply, we should also apply this to corporations, right? Why would we let a corporation off the hook? When would we ever say it’s okay for a corporation to initiate force, fraud, coercion, or to do anything that puts others at substantial risks of harm? So we shouldn’t be easy on corporations.

And of course, governments are just larger groups, right? I mean, they didn’t just spring into existence. They’re actually agreements between competent adults to do different things. And so that’s what a government is. So it’s critically important that we apply and hold to the exact same standards all groups, all corporations, and all governments. So now the question—we come to the question of taxes. And here we have a place that I think we should just be, as every issue, we should come to the table without a preconceived notion of how the issue should turn out. We should try to be as fair and honest and even-handed about just simply applying the principle to the issue, no matter where it goes, right? We don’t want to violate the principle.

So I can already hear some of your listeners, Bob, saying, “Look, no, I don’t agree to spend my money on the government or anybody else protecting me. And you can try to sort of say we have to force you into it and all reasonable people would agree to pay money to have a protection agency protecting them.” But I can assure you, from being a criminal defense lawyer now almost 30 years, you’ll always find somebody to disagree. And if somebody wants to disagree, who am I to tell them that they can’t? So I don’t agree that we should be able to take people’s money for any purpose at all, ever, unless and until they agree. And so they may not agree. And so I think that people are in charge of themselves, and if they want to defend themselves, they have every right to.

Now, as a practical matter, as you point out, the vast majority of people are not going to say, “I want to take my personal defense into my own hands.” And so they’ll hire somebody. Now, this might be part of the agreement when they purchase property, like a homeowners association. I would expect that most homeowners associations, like they do now, have rules that say, you know, “Don’t paint your house purple” and do this, that, and the next thing. And they may also say things like, “Hey, we’ve agreed in this community to hire this—what might be a government provider, but may also be a private provider.”

Competition in Governance and Protection [22:43]

Marc Victor: In fact, as you and I know, we can certainly observe goods and services are delivered best when they’re delivered by corporations or groups or people who are competing with each other for our business and do not have a monopoly on the service or product. And so I expect that we probably would have competing agencies. We should be doing this now, Bob. I don’t know why, you know, people are so upset with different city police departments and things like this, and they don’t like how the department has acted. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just simply renew a contract or fail to renew a contract and say, “Hey, you know, we’re going to outsource the police protection in this city or state or community or whatever to a private company that says, ‘You know, we’ve trained our officers to act differently than what you’re experiencing in your community.’” So I don’t see any problem with that. And if people don’t want to pay for things, we certainly shouldn’t try to make them, as this would violate our most basic rule.

Bob Zadek: I just want to mention—I’m sorry, Marc, I just wanted to jump in for a moment. You mentioned competition. I’ll just remind our listeners—they probably don’t need to be reminded—that I have had a wonderful time doing more than one show on topics such as the Free Cities movement, such as sea steading, where proponents of sea steading offer the opportunity to move easily from one independent government to another, to shop for the government that most appeals to you. So freedom in terms of what traditionally has been a governmental function is one of my favorite topics, and I’ve talked about it quite a bit with various guests over the years.

And the second comment, Marc—just, I’m sorry for interrupting—but on the subject of taxation, obviously a hot-button issue always, there’s always a lot of conversation that taxes are too high or too low. That conversation is constantly amongst us. And I would say I never, ever can determine or would say taxes are too high or too low because—and this is a principle that Marc has suggested during his presentation—is that taxes cannot be too high or too low in the abstract. That is just not the issue. The issue is: what are the taxes being used for? And if taxes are being used to transfer money from one human being to another simply because government feels that the recipient is more deserving of the payor’s money, that’s an improper use, and even taxes of one dollar for that purpose are too high. Whereas taxes spent for our common defense, assuming the money is well spent—a big assumption, but nobody can disagree that we need to put money in the pot for our collective national defense—and therefore, so long as the money is well spent, taxes—the amount of taxes that are required to protect us can never be too high so long as the money is well spent. So the issue is never with taxation. It’s not theft. I disagree with those who say otherwise. It’s only theft if the taxes are used for an improper, by these standards, purpose. So that’s my convenient little handy way to tell if taxes are too high. Just don’t focus on the amount; focus on what the money is spent for, and that will always lead you to the right conclusion on taxation.

Applying the Principle to Gun Control [26:51]

Bob Zadek: Now Marc, you have applied your principle most recently—you have spoken a lot to just to show how the principle of Live and Let Live gets applied to the very hard decisions we have to make collectively as a society. And you have written and spoken a lot about the almost insoluble problem of what is called gun control, whether or not—and the Second Amendment, which we’re not going to be referring to on this show specifically. But show us how the principle of how the Live and Let Live principle, called formally sometimes the non-aggression principle, how that helps you sort out your position, just to show us how your principles apply in practice, how you might apply that to help you see how you and others feel or should feel about gun control.

Marc Victor: I apply the principle exactly the same way to all issues. For example, before we leave the tax question, I think it would be fair to say to me the only question here is: are we taking somebody’s money without their permission? That’s what we can’t do. And so if somebody says, “Look, I don’t care what you call it, you don’t get to take my money without my permission,” I certainly agree with that. I don’t care what you’re using it for. I don’t care if someone thinks it’s an appropriate or inappropriate amount. Nobody gets to take somebody else’s money without their permission for any purpose. So I think if we say otherwise, we’re pretending, right? We’re just simply saying, “Look, I think it’s a good purpose to use it for local police departments or national defense or something else or healthcare or who knows what.” I don’t get into that discussion about whether the purpose is appropriate. I only care about: is the owner of the money—is that person agreeing to be separated from the money? If they are, it’s perfectly fine. If they’re not, it violates the rule and we shouldn’t do it.

The same way about guns. Look, you can violate the principle with a gun. If you use a gun to hurt another person, then you’re committing an assault or you’re violating the rule. If you take their money with a gun, that’s called a robbery. That violates the rule. So those are obvious, all the victim crimes involving guns are victim crimes and they violate the rule. Then the only question left really, in my view, is: is there something about simply having a gun in your hand that violates the rule? And the aspect of the rule here I’m thinking about is putting another person at a substantial risk of harm. And I think there are such circumstances.

For example, somebody who has been shown us through their past conduct that by simply having a gun in their hands, they are a substantial risk to another person. What type of a person is this? This is the violent felon, right? The person who has shown us through past experience that they continually violate the rule. Drive-by shootings, for example. Okay, we can tell such a person, “Look, you don’t get to have a gun in your hand because you put everybody at risk of violating the rule through your past conduct.” So now this doesn’t mean that magically we’re going to wave a wand so they can never get a gun. Of course they can violate the rule, but the same can be said about murder, right? We have rules prohibiting murder in the law and people still violate that. Doesn’t mean we do away with the law of murder.

So I think that that category is a category of people we can properly prohibit or do the best we can to try to prohibit them from having guns. Now I’ll also add a footnote here that if you committed a bunch of drive-by shootings and, you know, this was 20 years ago and now you say, “Look, I’m no longer a substantial risk,” I think you ought to have a right to try to make that case. And if the local community says, “You know what, this person’s no longer a risk,” then they’re out of that category.

So I think there’s maybe two other categories here that make sense. One: the person who’s not competent. Your four-year-old child, somebody who’s mentally ill and is not competent to have a gun in their hand. And the reason that’s the case is because their lack of competency with a gun in their hand causes them to be a substantial risk of harm to other people. So we can tell them, “Hey, for that reason and only for that reason, you can’t have a gun.”

And then the final category, I think that there are certain weapons—we shouldn’t pretend that the .22 handgun is exactly the same type of weapon that, say, we had when I was in the Marine Corps, you know, automatic .50 caliber tripod-mounted, you know, belt-fed weapons. These are different types of weapons. And I think it’s certainly conceivable that one could make the case that, “Hey, if you’ve had no training at all, you don’t know which end the round comes out, you don’t know how to store it, you don’t know what a safety is, you don’t know any of this stuff, well, you having a firearm in your hands is a substantial risk to other persons.” So I think it’s reasonable for people to say, “Look, do what you want, that’s true, but you don’t get to place other people at substantial risks of harm.”

That’s the reason. It’s not because I think the Second Amendment means this or that. I mean, the Second Amendment could be repealed. It could be interpreted a different way. Lots of things can be changed. My rights don’t emanate from that. The idea here is that if you’re not violating the principle, you should be allowed to do whatever you want. And if you are violating the principle, we can do whatever we want to stop you from violating the principle. It’s not whether I’m pro-gun or anti-gun or I like guns or I dislike guns. That has nothing to do with it. My personal opinion is irrelevant here. It’s just a matter of if we want to live in a civilized society, in a just society, we have to use a principle that makes sense. As basic—what I mentioned earlier—this common fundamental, common denominator of morality that all reasonable people agree to, this Live and Let Live principle. Let’s apply it across all issues exactly the same way.

And of course, these—what’s a substantial risk or substantial threat to another person? This is something reasonable minds can disagree on. We don’t have to have a one-size-fits-all approach. I think it’s very important that we agree on the principle and we analyze the principle correctly. But certainly one community—I could imagine one community saying, “Look, .22 handgun, look, unless—unless we think you’re some kind of a problem here, you should be able to have it and that’s the end of that.” I could see another community saying, “Look, you know, a firearm is a—it’s a deadly weapon, it’s a dangerous thing, and go out, get a, you know, two, three, four-hour class from somebody who’s qualified like the NRA or Gun Owners of America or some group like that, and, you know, show that you are competent with this weapon. And once you’ve done that, we’re satisfied that you’re not a substantial risk to another person.” Okay, no problem. I think both of those rules could be very compatible in two different communities. And let’s use the local communities as competing labs of freedom and let them compete and let’s see what people—what they’re attracted to. I think probably both of those rules are compatible in a free society.

Natural Rights vs. Constitutional Rights [30:55]

Bob Zadek: As Justice Brandeis has said, competing jurisdictions—he was referring to states—are laboratories of innovation. They are where policy gets experimented and one state will look upon another state’s success or failure and learn from it. But to the extent that those types of decisions are made locally, we learn more from each other.

Now, one comment, Marc, that you made about taxation has to be with consent. Of course, you and I agree, but the term “consent” has to be drilled down just a bit lest we end up with anarchy. And consent, as we know as attorneys, consent is either expressed—“I consent”—or it is implied. It is assumed that one has consented even though you haven’t signed a document. And the core assumption in our country is that since everybody agrees, it is assumed that we have the right to our person and property and we should not be harmed by somebody else. It is assumed that we consent to have government protect those rights to avoid each having to protect the rights for itself. We just assume that when you are born in our country, you sign on to those very core rights, and therefore your right that money shouldn’t be taken from you without your consent, but consent is applied. That is one of the core principles of our country.

And lastly, you mentioned the Second Amendment. We’re not going to spend our time, although we would enjoy doing so, talking about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but I just wanted to use that as a very, very brief reminder. We do not have the rights of free speech, of free association, of assembly, and of worship. We do not have those rights because they are given to us in the Constitution. No, that’s not the case. We have those rights because we are human. And it is assumed by Marc and by Bob and by most other people who have thought about it that of course we have those rights because we are human. We are not given those rights by government, as is often stated. Rights came first, and then there was government to protect those rights. So we do not have the right to bear arms—Marc referred to the Second Amendment—because we are given that right in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is simply a reminder to government: “Remember, government, your citizens have these rights.” And in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we remind government: “Whatever other powers you have, you do not have the power to take away these rights.” So I want us all to leave this show remembering we have these rights not because government was generous enough to give them to us. We have these rights because we are human beings and we deserve the right to our property and the right to be unharmed by others. Marc, I just want to put in that plug for natural rights, if I may. I’m sorry for interrupting.

Wealth Transfer and Moral Obligations [36:41]

Bob Zadek: Now Marc, another difficult issue which would be interesting to have you apply the Live and Let Live principle is the progressives in America feel passionately that with things like healthcare, the right to shelter, the right to food, that progressives feel that everybody has rights to certain what I will call creature comforts. And therefore, given that they have these rights, it is appropriate for government through taxation—which taxation means taking property by force—through taxation, it is appropriate for government to use the taxing power, taking property by force, in order to give, satisfy these rights that others amongst us should have who don’t have what the progressives feel is enough.

Now, speak to two things: speak to whether or not individuals who are lacking what I referred to as basic necessities have the right to these necessities—do they deserve them?—and then I’m going to use a word that I will come back to: the word “should.” And if these individuals do have the right to these, should Americans, other occupants of our country, be compelled to give up their property to satisfy those rights? In other words, apply the Live and Let Live principle to the very broad policy of wealth transfer.

Marc Victor: Yeah, you got a lot packed in here, Bob. I would say this: I certainly agree with the idea that consent can be either express or implied. However, we don’t want to imply consent in a case where somebody can expressly refuse consent, right? So the places where we might imply a consent is a situation where, say, somebody is unconscious, right? They’ve been maybe hit by a car and they’re in the street, and you might say a reasonable person would consent to be taken to the hospital and be treated, and then therefore we might want to imply the consent there and say, “Hey, you still got to pay that hospital bill because we couldn’t ask you,” right? We couldn’t say, “Hey, do you agree or not agree?”

In the case of taxation for personal security, you can ask. And somebody, and I absolutely will guarantee you, Bob, there will be people who say, “I expressly do not consent to having my money taken from me to even have it paid to the local police.” So if you intend to move past that and say, “Sorry, your express statement that you do not agree to have your money taken for local police, if you want to move past that and say, ‘Sorry, we won’t accept your express disagreement with this and we’re taking your money anyway,’” then I think you’re in exactly the same camp with the progressives, as you explain them, who say, “Look, we also think you’ve implicitly agreed to help other people with their healthcare and their creature comforts and shelter and all of that.”

I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think anybody has a right to live at the expense of another person, no matter how important we think it is for them to consent to those things. This is where we began with the difference between a legal rule and a moral rule. I would say to my friends on the left—and this is where Live and Let Live-ism, if you will, departs a little bit from libertarianism—libertarianism is everything we’ve explained thus far: compliance with that principle. That is not enough to get us to peace. This is why we in the Live and Let Live movement push further than that. We do have some things to say about ethics. We call them aspirational values, and we are definitely pushing aspirational values as ethics questions.

So we would be against changing the law to put the aspirational value in the law, but we still want to push them. They’re still important. And so we are trying to inspire people in our movement to act with things like tolerance and open-mindedness and voluntary kindness—I’m going to come back to that to answer your question—and civility and justice and things that optimize human happiness while decreasing human suffering. These are aspirational values.

So if you’re asking me, “Should you take care of your fellow human being who’s born in less fortunate circumstances?” my answer is going to be yes, you should act with voluntary kindness. These are moral questions, though. And so if you say, “Marc, thanks for the advice, but I disagree with you. I prefer to use my money to go buy an expensive car or take a vacation or do whatever I want to do with it,” they have every right to do that. This might be a person who I maybe don’t want to associate with or say, “This person is cold-hearted” or something like that. And this could be—this is entirely consistent with libertarianism, right? You can spend your money on anything you want. You can be a curmudgeon and say, “I refuse to help my neighbor,” and that’s fine.

The position of those in the Live and Let Live movement is you have every right to be close-minded, intolerant, and uncivilized. You can do anything you like as long as you don’t violate the basic principle. You should be left alone as a legal matter. But as an ethics matter, you’re not really part of our movement. We’re trying to get you to peace. And so I say to my friends on the left, “You should help these people.” Yes, I am concerned about people not having access to healthcare, and I am concerned about people less fortunate not having shelter and food and all these things and education. However, I recognize them as ethics questions, not as legal questions. So I don’t want to change the law to force people to help other people. That’s not the role of the law. The role of the law is to enforce what we call the least common denominator of morality, the Live and Let Live principle. You don’t get to violate that, period. But in terms of your morality, that’s your choice. Morality is different. So if people have every right to act immoral and not help their fellow neighbor, they’re just not acting consistently with the principles that we’re pushing in the Live and Let Live movement.

And that’s why we are distinctive from the libertarian movement. If you want to think about it, you can think about libertarian movement plus adding some important aspirational values. And that’s the difference between a movement that’s pushing freedom, like the libertarians, and a movement that’s pushing peace, like the Live and Let Livers. Freedom is—is a necessary prerequisite, but it’s not sufficient to get us to peace.

The Two Meanings of “Should” [43:31]

Bob Zadek: Which is really important. There’s a word that I alluded to but promised I would come back to, and now I’m going to come back to it. And the word is “should.” And “should” has two very, very different meanings. And here’s what—let me explain. And this will show how much in agreement we are, Marc. Your movement, the Live and Let Live movement, is both a movement that describes the relationship of citizens and their government and what they should be compelled to do and what government has the power, the moral right, to compel them to do. But you also have, as you have just explained, a very important moral component. In other words, “should” either means “must,” as in you should pay taxes for common defense—that’s a “must”—and “should” has a moral component, that is, if you are moral as we see it, because morality is personal, if you are moral under first principles of Live and Let Live, then consistent with that morality, you should—and then you can finish that sentence anyway you want—give away some of your money voluntarily to help others, you should care about others. So the word “should” either means we encourage you to do it or we force you to do it. And that’s the difference.

Marc Victor: Yeah, let me tell you how I’d break it down, Bob. I would break it down as follows. I use the word “must.” Here’s how I use the word “must”: you must comply with the Live and Let Live principle, whether you like it or not, right? You don’t get to be an aggressor. So we tell the people who would commit, say, thefts or assaults or robbers or burglars, “Look, we don’t care about whether you agree with this or not. We’re not asking for your agreement, nor are we seeking it. You do not get to be an aggressor, and if you try to do that, we’re going to do everything we can possibly do, we’re going to use the force of law against you to get you to comply with the Live and Let Live principle.” That’s a “must.”

Now, I don’t feel bad about this, right? Because all I’m saying here is you must not be an aggressor. You don’t get to use force against people, you don’t get to use fraud against people, you don’t get to use coercion, nor do you get to do anything that puts them at substantial risk of harm. You must comply whether you like it or not. And that’s the law. And everything about the law should be calibrated in that direction.

Then there is the “should.” We have a whole bunch of “shoulds” too. We say in the Live and Let Live movement, “You should use voluntary kindness towards other people. You should help your fellow human being. You should be open-minded and tolerant.” We’re pushing all that stuff. That’s the crowd we’re looking for to join the Live and Let Live movement. We want to change the world. And I don’t feel bad about shouting out to the world, “Look, there are ways that we can act better towards each other and we ought to. We ought to act with these aspirational values.” I don’t feel bad and I’ll defend them. You should be civilized and open-minded and tolerant. But you don’t have to be. And you have every right not to be. You can do whatever you like so long as you don’t violate the Live and Let Live principle.

We keep it really simple. And so there are things we do not argue about in the Live and Let Live movement that the libertarians argue about. Things like you are abutting up against natural law. And a lot of libertarians believe that. We don’t take a position on that. However you get to Live and Let Live, that’s your business, whether you get there from your religion or natural law or social contract or economics or it just makes sense or mommy said or whatever it is. If you get to the Live and Let Live principle, welcome.

We don’t argue about how you get there; there’s no need to argue about that. We don’t argue about the size of government. I don’t care if you want the government big or small or non-existent. That’s your position. What we say is whatever your government does, like everybody else and every other group and every other corporation, what it doesn’t get to do is to violate the Live and Let Live principle. It can do anything else. We also don’t argue about capitalism or socialism. Don’t care. You can support any economic system you like so long as you don’t violate the rule. So free market capitalism—there’s nothing about that that the rule is violated. Have fun all day long with that. Crony capitalism—the rule gets violated there, right? This is people giving money to politicians who then go to the government who get laws passed that favor or advantage one group over another. That’s coercion, and so that violates the rule. So crony capitalism is out. Voluntary socialism—look, if you want to put your money together and pool it and pay common bills together, have fun. This is voluntary; it doesn’t violate the rule. There is no reason and nothing about socialism for us to be all over the socialists about if they want to get together and do it voluntarily. They should be left alone. The people who support involuntary socialism, which means, “Oh, we’re going to pool our money and pay for common bills, and guys like Bob or Marc or whoever’s listening to this show doesn’t want to participate in that, we’re going to force them to participate in it whether they like it or not.” Okay, well for that reason alone, that reason alone, that violates the rule, and that’s why involuntary socialism is out.

We don’t need to get bogged down in arguments about whether socialism is better or capitalism is better. We don’t take a position on that. There’s no need to do that. We keep it simple. Do whatever you like, don’t violate the rule. And that applies to every person, every group, every corporation, every government. And if we just pushed this idea, we led with the principle instead of leading with issues, instead of starting with, “Look, methamphetamine ought to be legal” or something that’s controversial or whatever, start with the principle and don’t move past that principle until we get agreement. Because if you don’t get agreement on that principle, you got nothing. You got a mishmash of issues like the Republicans have and like the Democrats have that do not emanate from a principle. The good news is most reasonable people, or I’ll even go so far as to say all reasonable people, agree with the Live and Let Live principle. And we don’t need everybody. We just need more than we got now. We got enough. All we got to do is communicate the message in a simple, effective way where we lead with that message and get people’s hearts and minds around that principle and then we get them to apply it consistently to every issue.

Principles vs. Pragmatism [50:29]

Bob Zadek: Marc, I just want to—I’m sorry to do this, but I just want to interrupt because we are winding down. And you said we are closing on the perfect theme, which is: you commented that Democrats and Republicans, many people in public life, do not have principles. They are just pragmatists who have a certain specific result they want to achieve, but with no governing principles. And what you offer is what Reagan referred to as the shining city on the hill, the beacon, the principles. And when I have conversations with progressives and with others, I always say, “Hold it. What’s the—what’s the principle that governs your opinion on a certain policy issue?” And once you find the principle when you drill down, you will find so much common agreement, and therefore you only disagree on how to achieve that result. Now Marc, how do people learn more about the Live and Let Live movement? I apologize, we have about 20 seconds left, Marc.

Marc Victor: All right, well thanks. Really simple, just go to liveandletlive.org. This movement hasn’t even kicked off yet. It doesn’t kick off until 2023. So it’s early enough. If you want to be involved in this movement and be a mover and a shaker and start a chapter, you can donate—we’re a 501(c)(3). There are lots of things for people to do. Follow the Peace Radicals podcast. You can get it from liveandletlive.org. At least sign up and be part of the movement and blast it around and let everybody know. We want to get some momentum before we kick this thing off in March of 2023. So liveandletlive.org.

Bob Zadek: Thank you so much, Marc. Thank you for your time. This is Bob Zadek saying: please enjoy the podcast, let us know how you feel, we are welcome to suggestions, and please comment and rate us if you will. Thank you so much, Marc, and thank you so much to my friends out there. I’ll be back again next Sunday. Please enjoy the rest of the week.