See my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.
* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733,
https://archive.org/download/Liberta...rtarianism.pdf ,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170721...rtarianism.pdf ,
https://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm .
On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.
* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761,
https://archive.org/download/JesusIs...-Anarchist.pdf ,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170721...hist-jesus.pdf ,
https://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw .
For how physics allows unlimited progress by civilizations--to literally infinite intelligence and power--see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,
https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf ,
http://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god ,
https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .
Additionally, in the below resource are five sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The sixth section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.
* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019,
https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB ,
https://archive.is/uHEyL ,
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-...n.com/6bZDc7rB .
Further:
It is logically impossible for government to be a general benefit to society, and hence governments are unavoidably incompetent if that is the desired goal. Government does not bring order to society, but rather disorder. Government is anarchy in the sense of societal chaos. Instead, it is the market which brings order and harmony to society, and to the extent that it is allowed to operate, it does so despite government, not because of it.
For an apodictic proof of this per *wertfrei* economics via demonstrated preference, see the following article by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:
* Murray N. Rothbard, Ch. 17: "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", pp. 224-262 in Mary Sennholz (Ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956),
https://cdn.mises.org/On%20Freedom%2...%20Mises_2.pdf ,
https://webcitation.org/6Xz9WebJ6 ,
http://www.freezepage.com/1447055623CLUDAZDSPR . Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255.
What Prof. Rothbard shows in the foregoing citation is that it is logically impossible that government could be a general benefit to humanity, for the reason that government by definition operates on initiatory violence via its coercive regional monopoly on control over the law and via coercive wealth-extraction, and hence per demonstrated preference its victims of coercion reveal that they would have preferred that said compulsory transactions not have taken place. And due to the incommensurability of different people's subjective value scales, it is not logically possible to say if the beneficiaries of state violence gain more subjective value than its victims lose.
Whereas on the free market, all transactions are voluntary, and hence each party to an exchange reveals per demonstrated preference that, *ex ante*, they prefer what they are transacting to receive over that which they are to give up. Thus, transactions on the market are mutually beneficial, in that each party to a transaction must expect to gain in utility.
Prof. Rothbard takes leave of his analysis on this matter at this point. Howbeit, one can actually go further than Rothbard's above analysis of this topic, because rather than merely demonstrating that government is logically unproductive to society generally, one can actually demonstrate that government is logically antiproductive to society generally. The reason being is because parasitical exploitation allows such exploitative actors within a society to live on the expropriated wealth of productive members of said society. Whereas absent this exploitative extraction of wealth, in order to live in society, such expropriators would have to engage in voluntary interactions within society, and thus through demonstrated preference, each party to these voluntary transactions would be demonstrating that, *ex ante*, they expect to gain by these interactions. Thus, via such parasitism, society actually loses the mutually-beneficial gains in utility that would have to have taken place absent the subsistence which such violent exploitation allows its practitioners.
The objection might arise that the distinction between coercive and voluntary actions is an irrelevant differentiation as regards demonstrated preference, since after all, doesn't the coerced party who relents to his aggressive victimizer thereby demonstrate that he prefers assenting to the assailant's demands over the consequences of dissenting to them?
However, the aggressor himself demonstrates by his coercive actions that he believes that his coerced victims thereby lose in utility, otherwise there would have been no need for the aggressor to use force. Because if it were not for the assumption on the aggressor's part that his victim suffers a loss in the exchange, then his use of force would have been superfluous. And hence coercion does indeed occupy a unique place within the *wertfrei* analytical paradigm of demonstrated preference in showing a loss of utility on the victim's part, even--or indeed, especially--as so-regarded by the aggressor.
* * * * *
The sources I chose were selected as being the best ones to help educate people in matters of veridical economics and political theory. They already incorporate all the veridical political economy insights by Frédéric Bastiat and Prof. Ludwig von Mises, though in a more consistent, comprehensive and precise manner. Your suggestions would be good for those who are interested in the history of thought, i.e., in how said insights were developed. However, the resources I listed use the Scholarly Method, and hence for those who wish to delve into the history of such concepts, citations to the literature of such matters are already included within them.
