Is liberty a “slippery slope?”

Imagine a slippery slope where big government is at the top, and way down at the bottom is anarchy.

Libertarians often stand on the middle of that slope.

People constantly tell libertarians, “You kids can play on the slope, but don’t go too far or you’ll fall down!”

The top is assumed to be safe. That’s where the government protects everybody, right?

Personally, when I heard that liberty was a slippery slope, I immediately leaped off, and chose to live at the bottom. Why not?

I begin with the assumption that a world without government would probably be a reasonably safe place to live.

If someone proves me otherwise, then I’ll climb up the slope again.

Sure, there will be lots to debate about — what about courts, fire, police, defense, seat-belts and schools? Let’s read, debate and discuss all these topics.

But I think it’s unhealthy to start with the assumption that total government control is safe.

Total government control has been tried, and millions of people died because of it. I don’t understand why we are supposed to assume that it is the safest starting point.

So for me, I turn the whole mountain upside down. Let’s start with the assumption that a voluntary world would be ok. If anybody wants to propose a law, just know that you’re on a slippery slope towards totalitarian government control.