It has always been clear to me that a free society would develop a system of security forces unimaginable to someone who has spent his life in a world dominated by governments. I have no reason to think it wouldn’t work, but what’s less debatable is simply that what would emerge is currently unimaginable. Many have hypothesized over what could emerge, which I think is instructive if not necessary, but there is another type of defense which has been completely overlooked in the sources I’ve studied. It would have prevented primitive, pre-government, free societies from falling for the persuasive power-grabbers’ tricks. It would have prevented one of the smallest, freest states in human history from growing into the largest.

It is defense against the growing state. More accurately, it is defense against the disguise of legitimacy placed on a crime.

I always get the feeling that ponderers of a free society assume that once government is gone entirely, it’s gone for good. It’s as if all members of the free society are experts in Austrian economics and libertarian ethics, and they’re all smart enough to dismiss any statist sophistry they may encounter.

If such a libertopian free society were ever to occur, how could it possibly stay that way? Will it require an eternal fight against statist ideologies? Chances are, there won’t be shrines to Murray Rothbard in every household, as division of labor and productivity would explode, and no one will have the time or incentive to read up on this stuff. Forced education is obviously out of the question. Perhaps humans are incapable of achieving permanent freedom in a society.

The eternal fight sounds most likely. I’m in.

The Spokane region and adjacent northern Idaho have had numerous incidents of anti-government and white supremacist activity during the past three decades.

According to Obama, “This is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda.” I can think of bigger bonanzas. Like bombing, invading, and indefinitely occupying their communities. He elaborates: “You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities.” Serious violence, folks. If we’re not careful, a war might break out.

Meanwhile, this story’s buried: 4th missile strike in Pakistan in 24 hrs kills 5

Were I a potential recruit, I’d likely be more influenced by foreign military presence and my dead countrymen than by people burning my sacred book thousands of miles away.

Missouri cops serve a drug-related search warrant by sending a SWAT raid in the middle of the night. Cops dressed as soldiers bust in the door, shoot both family dogs in front of the suspect’s wife and child, find “a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana” (local writeup), and charge the parents with second-degree child endangerment.

And you thought smoking that stuff wasn’t dangerous.

In a 2004 article, What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, Stephan Kinsella argues that the minarchist approach is not libertarian at all:

Other utilitarian replies like “but we need a state” do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that “we” “need” things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else – making sure certain public “needs” are met, despite the cost – but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same – innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized – libertarian, one might say – and prefer peace over violent struggle.

I like it. Since I discovered libertarianism, I’ve always thought it was inconsistent with the advocacy of any amount of government. But if I must summarize my views in a single phrase, I’ll stick with free market anarchist for now, as “libertarian” and “anarchist” have both become so diluted that I’d have to specify further.

Matt Palmer writes on Mises Daily about Rothbard’s view of the state: Rothbard and the Nature of the State. He brings up a crucial point that I had not fully identified in my own thinking:

The actions of those with the state designation are not directed by constitutions. They are restrained only by the same thing that gives them life: the willingness of the people in their territory to tolerate them.

The point is that government only exists in the minds of the governed. The only difference between a gang of criminals ruling a region by force and a legitimate government is that the region’s residents believe that the government is legitimate (at least enough of them to enforce it upon the rest). External states will also recognize a specific group as the legitimate government of a region. Indeed, regardless of how the governed view their supposed leaders, we’ve got the whole planet mapped out with who’s in charge of each chunk of land.

If you’re unfamiliar with Mises or Rothbard, start with their Wikipedias. I’m currently plugging through the first pages of Mises’s Human Action. I might finish in a year. Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State is next. I’ve read some Rothbard before, and he’s among my favorite authors. So far, his ideas align with mine better than anyone I’ve studied, including Rand. So it’s fascinating to see in this letter his adulation for her and the profound impact of Atlas Shrugged, similar to what it did for me.

I just found this article on mises.org, a chapter from Morris and Linda Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty. The authors swiftly refute dozens of misconceptions of how or whether defense would function in a free society.

One sticking point I’ve always had is with freeloaders. If people can voluntarily pay into regional defense services, couldn’t some opt out and still get the benefits from those who choose to pay? That doesn’t seem stable.

Here’s an enlightening excerpt:

A major portion of the cost of defense against foreign aggression in a laissez-faire society would be borne originally by business and industry, as owners of industrial plants obviously have a much greater investment to defend than do owners of little houses in suburbia. If there were any real threat of aggression by a foreign power, businessmen would all be strongly motivated to buy insurance against that aggression, for the same reason that they buy fire insurance, even though they could save money in the short run by not doing so.

An interesting result of this fact is that the cost of defense would ultimately tend to be spread among the whole population, since defense costs, along with overhead and other such costs, would have to be included in the prices paid for goods by consumers. So, the concern that “free riders” might get along without paying for their own defense by parasitically depending on the defenses paid for by their neighbors is groundless. It is based on a misconception of how the free-market system would operate.

The role of business and industry as major consumers of foreign-aggression insurance would operate to unify the free area in the face of any aggression. An auto plant in Michigan, for example, might well have a vital source of raw materials in Montana, a parts plant in Ontario, a branch plant in California, warehouses in Texas, and outlets all over North America. Every one of these facilities is important to some degree to the management of that Michigan factory, so it will want to have them defended, each to the extent of its importance. Add to this the concern of the owners and managers of these facilities for their own businesses and for all the other businesses on which they, in turn, depend, and a vast, multiple network of interlocking defense systems emerges.

That’s freakin’ cool!

corporations are solely obligated to act in the best interest of their stockholders.

They don’t even have that obligation. Species of fish in a drying sea have no obligation to develop legs, but the ones who do are more likely to survive.

It is expected that every human will act in his own best interest. It is up to the individual to decide what his interests are, what he values. This goes for every last choice made by any human ever. You make a choice based on the things you’ve personally chosen (consciously or not) to value. If you act for the sake of someone else’s well-being, then you’ve merely chosen their well-being as a personal value. (If we don’t have common ground on this point, then nothing I’ve written below matters.)

Further, a group whose individuals’ self-interests align on a certain issue will coordinate and act accordingly. (This is merely the sum of individuals making personal choices, as above, not a collective choice.)

Whether a corporation is under the sole direction of a President/CEO or a board of directors, those in charge will always act in their own best interest. There is no other way. So, the motivation to make money for shareholders comes from a personal motivation of those in charge, who wish to run a successful company with long-term growth while making a bunch of money for themselves. Doing so often requires happy shareholders. This is all to be expected. Whatever actions a corporation takes, it is to further its own health. This includes feigning environmental friendliness, making public donations to Haiti, and IBM’s “smarter world” ads. They’re creating a positive public image, which they expect to result in future profits. There’s nothing wrong with this, but it must be understood for what it is. Corporations do not pursue social responsibility because they like being socially responsible. They pursue profits, and the UN Global Compact abiders you mentioned have wagered that abiding will bring them more future profits.

that means make them a shit ton of money and screw over the environment, developing countries, and human rights among other things.

If screwing over the environment, small countries, and human rights were in the best interest of shareholders, we would have a very different world. To be more accurate: “that means make them a shit ton of money and screw over the environment, developing countries, and human rights among other things.” That, and create potential for more money in the future, i.e. a healthier company. That’s the driving force. I think you are contending that corporations do this at the expense of the environment, developing countries, and human rights. Some do, but not all. This only means that some corporations take actions that you and I wish to prevent by force, but not all. So it says nothing about corporations in general. Those corporations who are not violating human rights are still motivated by profits, not social responsibility.

where an individual is easily prosecuted for acts against their fellow man, corporations have an unfair advantage – usually the result of lining the pockets of their legislators.

You struck gold here. I’ll dig.

Suppose a criminal pays off a cop to look the other way. Who’s at fault? Both should be prosecuted for different things, but how can this be prevented? People in society can’t remove the criminal, that was the cop’s job. But they can remove the cop. Assuming the people elected the mayor, the mayor appointed the police commissioner, and the commissioner hired the cop, then the people are ultimately responsible. If the bribery is rampant, throw that fuckin mayor out of office.

When a corporation acts criminally, they are responsible for the crimes, but not for the fact that it went unpunished. That’s the legislator’s fault. And every citizen who gave that legislator their vote shares in the blame. Targeting corporations will do nothing to rectify the situation. Target the legislators.

A line from the dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, caught my eye:

“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.”

True, a corporation is not a member of society. But who owns and operates it? Members of society. The distinction attempted above has bothered me for years. At what point in the growth of a business does the owner cease to function as an individual, instead representing a heartless, lifeless, corporate big-wig? Do you draw the line at a certain annual revenue? Number of employees? Government is in the business of drawing lines where none exist, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were real answers to these questions, and that they made no sense at all.

I teach guitar lessons, only a few hours per week for now. I will eventually expand my services. I assume at some point I will need to register my business and pay potentially crippling taxes on it. Why? Because people think there’s a fundamental difference between running a company and face-to-face exchanges of valued goods and services between individuals.