quotes

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origins in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. the mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. ... In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

Some writers have so confounded government with society, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ....

Det er den sosialistiske idé at det å tjene penger er et onde.
Jeg betrakter det å tape penger som det virkelige onde.

Tenkende mennesker spør hvilke faktorer det er som hjelper til med åskape totalitære bevegelser. En av disse faktorene er de intellektuelles forræderi. (Klassekampen 16.11.2005)

There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

It is one thing to show a man that he is in error,and another to put him in possession of truth.

Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.

A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.

«Whenever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the protection of our properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many»

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.

Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someonewho reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell ananti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Capitalism was the only system in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only system that stood for man's right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, to himself.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual.Those who deny individual rights, cannot claimto be defenders of minorities.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?

«He does not seem to know what an argument is. He never uses arguments himself. He never troubles himself to answer the arguments of his opponents. It has never occurred to him, that a man ought to be able to give some better account of the way in which he has arrived at his opinions than merely that it is his will and pleasure to hold them. It has never occurred to him that there is a difference between assertion and demonstration, that a rumour does not always prove a fact, that a single fact, when proved, is hardly foundation enough for a theory, that two contradictory propositions cannot be undeniable truths, that to beg the question is not the way to settle it, or that when an objection is raised, it ought to be met with something more convincing than 'scoundrel' and 'blockhead'»