AnarchoLife

justice and bin laden

2011-06-08T07:05:00.000-07:00

a friend sent me an email about a video on a merchant's website using a parodied, celebratory version of osama bin laden's death as a marketing tool. outside of such a thing being in bad taste, there's nothing wrong with that, but what is striking to me is the mentality behind it.

the gist of the video was "ding-dong the witch is dead! buy our product!". it's been a pretty common theme for most folks, let's be honest. "yay! that bad guy who killed all those people is dead! oh, sweet justice!", might sum up the collective sentiment. but that logic is so wrongheaded and naive that it's hard to know where to start. i like lists, so i'll take that approach:

1) according to the FBI's wanted poster, bin laden hasn't even been officially charged with doing anything relating to the 9/11 attacks. let that soak in - HE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED.

2) bin laden has repeatedly denied responsibility for the attacks. there are many sources who say he has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the key is that there's no way to tell, conclusively whether he did or didn't have anything to do with them.

3) so, there's a guy who hasn't been accused of anything (though his involvement was heavily implied by certain parties) who has denied responsibility for the crimes in question, who was hunted down and executed, without trial. people celebrate this. i can only assume, since people aren't hypocrites (sarcasm), that this is the way they think they should be treated. those who celebrate bin laden's death must believe that they, themselves, should be punished for crimes that anyone implies that they may have committed, without the chance to defend themselves. somehow, i think this one of those things that only applies to "other" people.

4) how does anyone know if the events in question (bin laden's murder) actually took place? did anyone see it happen? did they know bin laden and see his body afterward and identify that he was, in fact, dead? no? so, all we have to go on is the word of proven liars and manipulators? sorry, but that doesn't pass muster for me. how do i know bin laden's dead? because liars told me so!

5) doesn't it bother anyone that the president has hit squads running around killing people upon his decree? anyone remember stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, etc? oh, right, this is 'murica! no president would issue orders to kill innocent american political opponents. it can't happen here - right?

6) but let's assume bin laden is guilty. the government killing him is unjust for those actually injured in the attacks he's blamed for. isn't he supposedly rich? why not, at least, force him to make restitution to the injured parties? by the hit squad going out and terminating him, it insures that those with an actual claim against him will never be compensated. nice "justice" you got there.

7) again, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that bin laden is guilty of the crimes he's been accused of. would those who celebrate his death equally celebrate the deaths of george w. bush and barack obama, who have openly and publicly engaged in the planning and execution of operations resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians in orders of magnitude greater than bin laden ever has, if the governments of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan or yemen hunted them down in washington d.c. and killed them with a hit squad? if not, why not? is it about killing innocent civilians or is it about something else?

if you are one of the people who celebrated bin laden's murder, you have to ask yourself exactly what it is that you're celebrating and why.

the vast majority of people simply don't know what justice means. the public education system has done its duty, churning out compliant, unthinking drones who cheer the depredations of government on command. good job, most-people, you once again confirm your unquestioned love for evil.

the problem(s) with minarchists

2010-11-16T05:15:00.000-08:00

as is the nature of being an anarchist in the freedom movement, i have many minarchist friends. for those who don't know what these terms mean, an anarchist (an=no, archos=rulers) is one who advocates the abolition of government and a minarchist (min=small, archos=rulers) is one who advocates a government, but a small and weak government. though i certainly appreciate minarchists more than outright statists, there are some problems that i think minarchists should consider that make the minarchist position untenable.

as with all issues, there are two aspects: the moral and the practical. the moral is always the easiest to deal with, so i'll start with that. inherent in any "archism" that isn't anarchism, is the rule of some over others - by force. so, by definition, minarchists advocate an institution in which some people use violence to rule over the innocent as well as the criminal. they advocate the initiation of force to keep others out of certain markets like defense, justice, and police. some may even advocate more than that, but if so, that begins to strain even the minarchist label.

it should be fairly obvious that no one, including a minarchist, has the right to participate in any markets, while excluding others by force, nor does anyone, including a minarchist, have the right to force others to participate in a market that they have monopolized with their minimal state via such nefarious schemes as taxation (the forced taking of the property of others, aka; theft). even if elected, how can an electorate, each member of which has no right to rule over others, confer to the minarchist such a right? they can't. no one has any such right. such a right does not exist. therefore, the actions of the minimal state must be undertaken illegitimately.

generally, minarchists use the argument that a government is necessary for an orderly society and that certain markets must be monopolized by the state to achieve that. this is a practical argument, not a moral one. the morality of rule over others is still as clear regardless of practicality. the problem is that minarchists are, in this way, no different than totalitarians. they advocate the violent rule over others in order to achieve some goal. the difference is in degree, not in kind. totalitarians have the same philosophy, only with a wider scope.

now for the practical problems with minarchism. in advocating a state monopoly in certain markets, like "national" defense, justice or police, minarchists, wittingly or unwittingly, advocate socialism. socialism is an economic "system" in which government holds titled control over the means of production. in other words, the government holds a legal monopoly over a certain market or markets. it has been shown, both in theory and in practice, that socialism can't work for the good of society. the reason is that a coercive monopoly (a monopoly that insulates itself from competition by force) has no market input by which to determine demand for its goods or services, the correct resources and amount of resources to use for the goods or services, or the type of production to employ for those goods and services. there is no access to the pricing that markets provide (through competition) in order to calculate these things. a socialist system is, by its nature, excluded from the information necessary to make prudent decisions. This is widely known as "the calculation problem".

to minarchists: i know that the migration away from statism is a tough one and it takes time. you are on the right track! of course, it is my desire to help to bring you full circle and gently point out the reasons why government, of any size, is morally and practically wrong. luckily, i've also written briefly on how markets are more likely to succeed where governments inevitably fail, here, here, here and here.

take the leap to anarchism, minarchists (and everyone else)! we are here waiting to soften your landing.

Anarchy! What it is and What it isn't

2010-08-19T05:46:00.000-07:00

First things first: anarchy is not chaos. In fact, the philosophy, which has many quite different factions, is based on the moral and practical goal of greater societal order through voluntary interaction rather than through force. Anarchy is the natural societal order achieved through the consensual interactions of individuals.

Anarchy is derived from the Greek word "anarkhos" , meaning "no ruler". Those who advocate anarchy are called anarchists. There are many different types, based on their idea of what type of socio-economic system they prefer to engage in with others, including anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-primitivists, etc. A quick read on Wikipedia can sum up the differences. What's important to know about anarchists is that they all reject the notion that people can be owned by and, consequently, ruled by, other people. They do not believe that anyone has a right to the person or property of others, precluding the idea that some (governments) may use force against others (citizens) in order to bend those others to their will.

The anarchist's greatest enemy, therefore, is government. Governments are those groups of people claiming for themselves the right to rule over others by force. The anarchist believes that people are born with equal rights and such rule is imposition against those rights. Anarchists advocate the abolition of government in favor of the spontaneous order of natural human society and consider it naive to believe that if people cannot be trusted with their own power as individuals, that they somehow can be trusted with the centralized power of government.

Typically, people are woefully miseducated on the ideas of human nature, society and economy, making them fear the idea of a voluntary society, even though the alternative, government, has proven to be a whimsical, utopian idea based on a theory, socialism, that has been discredited by economics and has proven to be a disaster in practice. For this reason, it is assumed that voluntary society cannot exist. Herein lies the biggest stumbling block to the philosophy: reversing the years of misinformation and replacing them with more factual, logical understanding.

The assumption for most is that government must exist to stop bad people from doing bad things. Anarchism disagrees. It should be clear that, not only does government fail in this, but it acts a vehicle for bad people to do really bad things like war, genocide, slavery, etc. Anarchists understand that security is a service that is subject to supply and demand, like any other. Therefore, it cannot be supplied effectively, efficiently or in a manner consistent with the desires of the customer by a coercive monopolist like government. All people desire to be secure in their person and property to a far greater degree than they desire the person or property of others as a general rule. Entrepreneurs realize this and will always offer such security in a competitive environment, consistent with the desires of its customers. If the customer is a syndicalist, they are free to procure security from a syndicate. If they are communists, they can choose to procure security from the commune. If they are capitalists, they are free to procure security from a company. All these entities are truly held accountable for abuse by their competitors or ideological alternatives. Governments are not.

The way to tell a true anarchist from a fake is that the true anarchist is never willing to initiate force against the person or property of others. He will never support government, nor will he require others to participate in his preferred ideology. The anarchist is not a lazy busybody willing to employ government to force his ideas on others. He relies, like every decent person should, on persuasion and, upon the failure to persuade, tolerance. All anarchists are libertarians, all anarchists are market anarchists. Ideology follows after those categories. All are libertarians because they must accept the non-aggression principle. All are market anarchists because they cannot seek their preferred socio-economic situation without market freedom.

Of course, there is much more to anarchism than the simple exposition above. Here are some links that get into the nuts and bolts:

basics of libertarianism 1

basics of libertarianism 2

government monopoly

contradictions of government 1

contradictions of government 2

contradictions of government 3

the anarchist solution 1

the anarchist solution 2

the anarchist solution 3

the anarchist solution 4

the anarchist solution 5

what are rights?

the failure of democracy

the constitution experiment

"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement.
The choice lies with you!" - Peter Kropotkin

illegal immigration

2010-08-08T20:09:00.001-07:00

a major, ongoing concern in the u.s. is that of illegal immigration. as is so often the case, the mainstream debate revolves around logic (or the lack thereof) stemming from false, assumed premises. most participants assume the legitimacy of the state, lack an understanding of private property, have a very poor, if not non-existent understanding of economics and are influenced, surprisingly transparently, by ethnic and racial biases.

first, let's address the rights-driven, morality of immigration. every person has rights. those rights stem from his entitlement to his own property, the most basic unit of which is his body. all people have the absolute right to do with their property whatever they wish, as long as they avoid infringing the property of others. as the old cliche goes, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".

that being the case, people have the right to travel wherever they please as long as they respect the legitimate property of others. no one has the right to stop them from immigrating from place to place except those who may own land being trespassed upon. any attempt to stop immigration outside of one's own land is a violation of the rights of that individual - a crime.

practically, immigration is a boon to an economy. generally, people immigrate for the same reasons they do virtually anything else; as a means to the end of improving the quality of their lives. this is a natural function of markets. as a place becomes more productive and, therefore, wealthier, it attracts those who wish to increase their wealth. it works out, because such economies need new labor to expand production in line with growing demand. it is part of the natural harmonies of human society - the spontaneous order. as more people enter an economy, more goods and services are needed to sustain them, creating higher demand, a continued increase in production expansion, an increase in the need for new labor, etc.

the problems with immigration are a creation, almost entirely, of the state. countries are an abstraction. when one refers to "this country" or "our country", they engage in the fallacy of conflating two separate and distinct groups. there is no "country", only (1) people engaging in activities every day, attempting to better their lot in life according to their own values and (2) those, like governments, attempting to live at the expense of others through force. they are separate, competing groups. the latter group has established a boundary with another such neighboring group (like the boundary between the u.s. and canada or mexico) inside which, each will exploit its resident population. these turf boundaries are sanitized with the term "borders".

governments will, in order to control populations, set up laws governing immigration. they don't want anyone to be able to conduct business inside their boundaries without being able to exploit them. so, they set up checkpoints at borders and keep a strict watch on who enters and who leaves. they violate the rights of people to move freely in order to better conduct their criminal scheme. they demonize "illegal" immigrants who use welfare, but do not pay into the system, creating friction between immigrants and legal citizens who must fund welfare. it's clever, because it hides the fact that the whole scenario is a product of the state creating and forcibly funding a welfare program in the first place. governments might point out how much drug-related crime immigrants are engaged in, but this, too, is a result of the state's outlawing of drugs.

illegal immigration is a problem created and exacerbated by government. the individuals referring to themselves as "the government" have, just as any other people, no right to restrict the movement of others. in violating the rights of immigrants, they cause the weakening of an economy. there is nothing wrong with immigration, legal or illegal. eliminate the state and you eliminate the problem.

that "render unto caesar" passage

2010-08-02T07:14:00.000-07:00

My post entitled "Christianity and the state" lays out a strong case against the compatibility of government and Christianity. often, as should be expected, the passage in the bible in which the pharisees question Christ about taxation is brought up. it's often used as proof that, indeed, Christians are required to pay taxes to the state, thereby supporting paul's alleged statement in romans 13 commanding submission to government. here, i will point out why this is not only a poorly reasoned argument, but one that, if reasoned properly, reinforces the idea of Christian resistance to the state.

let's have a look at the entire passage, first (from the ESV):

¹⁹ The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people. ²⁰ So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. ²¹So they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. ²²Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" ²³But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, ²⁴"Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar’s." ²⁵He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." ²⁶And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.

here we have the pharisees, who were constantly trying to trap Jesus, attempting to have him either deny his deity by sharing Godly authority with man, by allowing that caesar has the authority to tax God (Christ) and Christians, splitting their allegiance between two authorities, or have Jesus deny that caesar has such authority so that they can have him arrested for promoting tax revolt or evasion. regardless of whether Christ says yes or no, he loses.

Christ, though, is smarter than what the pharisees give him credit for. his answer is neither the yes nor the no that they seek. Christ answers in a way that will get him out of the trap, yet will make his point perfectly clear. typically, Christians interpret his answer as a simple "yes, we must pay taxes (and that caesar has authority over Christians just as another God would)". it's a puzzling interpretation as it assumes that the pharisees were successful in their trap and Jesus was thwarted in that instance, denying his his deity by sharing authority with a man.

in fact, the question that should automatically arise from Christ's answer is, what is it that belongs to caesar, but not to God? or, does God's authority end where caesar's begins? the obvious answer is that nothing belongs to caesar that doesn't belong to God. Christ's followers would have readily understood that, as would the pharisees, but they'd have nothing to use against Jesus because of his very clever response to their devious inquiry. this is why they were "marveling at his answer".

pay tribute to caesar? no. in fact, that denarius with his face on it? don't even use it. let him keep it. this dovetails nicely into agorism, or the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the underground markets, which naturally tends toward non-state issued currency. easier said than done, of course, but it's always a great goal to strive for.

not paying taxes has a greater moral implication also. if you don't pay, then the state can't use the funds to finance its wars, police and corporate protection racket. all of the state's funding is cut off if we refuse to pay taxes and trade in currencies like gold and silver rather than state currencies. if we can successfully go underground with our economic activities, then the state is isolated from wealth. it will have no option but to wither and die.

render unto caesar - nothing.

a strategy to defeat the state

2010-07-21T20:43:00.000-07:00

for some reason, i don't think i've ever posted my preferred strategy for bringing down the state. so, just for the record, i'll document it now. i'd hate to be accused of having complaints, but no solutions!

the most important part of any strategy right now is education. every time someone swallows the red pill, the state weakens. the ideal situation would be to have everyone learn that the state is not only not necessary for civilization, but it is deleterious to those ends. having a designated and untouchable group of people violently exploiting others, like governments, can never be the solution to the problem of people violently exploiting others. there's no way to teach everyone right from wrong. some are so hopelessly entangled in the myths of the state, that they simply lack the ability to escape. the more that we plant the seed of truth, the closer we edge to our goal. don't worry that deconversion is slow and difficult; be patient. all we can do is plant the seed. if the mind is fertile, it will, eventually, germinate.

second is the promotion of civil disobedience. the more difficult we make it for the state to govern, the better. it helps to waste their resources and makes a spectacle of their aggression against good people. so, however and to whatever extent you can, disobey! if you are too fearful to do that, then support someone who's willing and able to take the risks. legality ≠ morality!

lastly we must develop underground markets. black markets, gray markets and anything that encourages voluntary exchange and economic development off of government's radar. the more we prosper while evading the greedy hands of government, the better able we'll be to weather the storm of the state's inevitable collapse which will take the white markets with it. it's called agorism and it can be any voluntary, economic exchange that goes unreported to government.

freedom won't come easy, so forget wasting your time with political action. political action is the opiate of the masses. the state has sown the seeds of its own destruction, at least in the u.s., and now is the time to prepare to move out of the dark ages and into enlightenment.

understand, disobey, evade!

learn more here:

www.strike-the-root.com
www.lewrockwell.com
www.mises.org
www.agorism.info

remember not to vote!

2010-07-20T15:33:00.000-07:00

yes, i've written on this subject before. i felt like i should be more clear and concise on the argument i make against voting. looking back at those earlier posts, there was something left to be desired.

1. voting sanctions violence. government is a group of people who have declared themselves to be your ruler - with or without your consent. every rule they make, every regulation they implement is backed up by the threat that they will use force in order to gain your compliance. when you vote, you actively help someone get into a position to use that violence against others. you become, in essence, an accessory to crime.

2. voting legitimizes government. the more votes a candidate receives, the greater his "mandate". everything he does can be whitewashed as "the will of the people". a vote helps to obscure the criminal nature of government by giving people the illusion that they are involved in the process, when, of course, they aren't.

3. you never know what you're voting for. politicians are liars. that's a known quantity. all one has to go on when electing a candidate are his words. we know that words can't be trusted. so, when you vote and that candidate does something awful that he said he wouldn't do, like invade a country and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, are you going to be willing to accompany him to the hague to answer to war crimes? let's be honest, you helped it all happen.

4. voting will never change the nature of government. regardless of your vote, government will remain, by definition, an institution based on violence against others. if you want to be involved in assisting a machine of evil, then voting is an easy way to do it.

the alternative, of course, is to stay at home, away from such things and enjoy your clear conscience (or, you can do this instead). after all, if you vote, you have no right to complain.

practical corporatism

2010-06-07T20:07:00.000-07:00

classic! a lesson in thinking like a politician:

currently, BP's liability for the spill in the gulf is capped by law at $75 million. republicans tend to support that, democrats want to raise it to $10 billion. republicans want to be seen as pro-business by supporting a low limit on the liability of a corporate giant. democrats want to be seen as defenders of "the people" or "the environment", by increasing that liability. that is what's seen. here is what's unseen:

both groups, consistent in the practice of taking opportunities in a crisis, are attempting to help establishment oil companies - including BP. republicans want to help by limiting the amount BP will have to pay out. that, in the short run, will ingratiate them to the sickeningly politically connected monster. this is obvious. obama was the largest recipient of BP's political contributions in the last election and republicans want to get the bulk of that action in the future. they believe this will help those chances.

democrats, on the other hand, have already benefited from BP's contributions and are now acting in BP's interest by raising the cap. but how could raising the liability for BP help? IT LIMITS COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY. with such a high cap, it will be extremely difficult for smaller companies or new companies to get the insurance necessary to cover such a cap - effectively forcing out of the market these smaller, leaner, hungrier competitors and further entrenching the established players. by limiting competition, established companies can increase their profit margins. that is why they play the political game.

"corporatism" is the partnership between the state and politically connected companies. corporations help to get politicians into power and politicians help to limit competition in the interest of those companies (among other things). there is nothing wrong with big business, huge business, even - as long as it is voluntary, meaning that it is not the benefactor of violence against others. actions such as the one outlined above do benefit some by forcably pushing competitors away through law and the violence that backs up law. in a voluntary situation, the bigger the business, the better (because businesses must be good at fulfilling the desires of their customers in order to grow)!

i always say that the state isn't what it is by accident. politicians all know that we are trained not to see "the unseen". over the years they have been the ones who designed the system that neglects to teach us such things. it's a self-enforcing system. teach them not to think and then take advantage of that disability. it is the evil beauty of the state system - the greatest criminal scheme of all time.

there are many methods by which the state profits at the expense of the innocent and corporatism is a favorite.

this incident is corporatism in a nutshell. believe in politicians at your own risk!

animal "rights"

2010-04-10T20:18:00.000-07:00

this is the only post i expect will be less popular than the military posts. that's unpopular! the subject is animal rights. you may be able to guess already that the idea of animal rights will be diminished here, but i urge the reader to check emotion at the door and hear the argument through based on logical merit.

more disclaimers: i'm an animal lover. i've done many things for animals that not only will others never do, but are unlikely to know anyone who's done them. i rescued a crane with a broken wing, treated two dogs (that weren't mine) in my home, for parvo, raised two squirrels (one of whom is still with me after nearly 3 years), moved multiple turtles out of the road, rescued and released a bat who was suffering from an unknown issue and so on. i always grew up with and was very close to the family dogs. no one can rightfully say that i'm not sensitive to the well-being of other species.

there are no such things as inter-species rights. much of the confusion on this issue is due to the fact that very few people understand what "rights" are in the first place. another major issue is that animals are expert at pulling heartstrings. people love them and want to treat them as equals. hell, i want this! the fact is that nature didn't intend it. if animals have rights then shouldn't lions and tigers be held accountable as murderers? should cats, who toy with mice before killing them and then leaving them to rot, be accused of vicious torture? do bears have the obligation to recognize the rights of humans? the violation of life and limb is a fact of nature. no animal has an obligation to respect the rights of any other animal.

the only rights that exist are those between two or more individuals of the same species based on property. respect for property is a common occurrence in the animal kingdom, not just among humans. we have to be careful not to confuse ideas out of our passion for the issues. while we all want animals to be treated well, their is no logical basis for arguing in favor of "animal rights". often, animals can be considered to be property themselves in the fact that nature has designed animals to eat one another.

animal rights activists will use the idea that animals have rights to use force through government dictate to stop people from "abusing" animals. animal abuse is, in my opinion, abhorrent, but it is also a vague term, likely to be defined differently by any observer. allowing government to initiate force upon people for animal abuse is wrong in two ways: 1) animals are the legitimate property of others and they have right to treat them as they see fit. 2) once laws are enacted against animal abuse, they can be manipulated to the most ridiculous extremes without recourse.

the proper way to deal with animal abuse is to alert the public to such abuse and seek to have abusers ostracized for their actions. because animal abuse is almost universally loathed, those committing such acts can be easily marginalized. their reputations and businesses or employment may suffer, making it difficult for them to interact with society and provide for themselves (see michael vick).

please, speak out about animal abuse and demonize abusers. don't seek to become a criminal by using aggression against them and their property in the form of government animal rights law enactment and law enforcement. as usual, the state is not an answer and there are much more effective and ethically responsible ways to deal with socially unacceptable behavior.

culpability lies in actions, not words

2010-03-20T17:13:00.000-07:00

it's been a common topic here: criminality. as i've stated before, true criminality is not a legal matter, but a philosophical one. criminality involves the violation of the person or property of others. it has nothing to do with (regardless of what the state tells you) legalities.

just as one cannot truly own another, his mind always remaining independent, if not his body, one cannot take responsibility for the actions of others. no one is a robot and all have the ability to choose which actions they will undertake and which they will not. all are responsible for fully thinking out their actions before acting, especially when those actions are directed against others. refusing to do so is not an excuse when seeking forgiveness for harming someone.

being asked or "ordered" to violate the property of others is a decision that lies with the individual, not the task master. when leaders of governments order their minions to undertake a crime, they are guilty of nothing more than bad behavior. it is the minion who commits the crime who bears sole responsibility for his voluntary actions. if one argues the culpability of those giving orders, one must agree that simple ideas, speech or desires, if unpopular, should be considered crime. enter the thought police.

thoughts and words can never be criminal because they don't violate the person or property of others. regardless of how despicable persons like stalin, hitler, lincoln, amin, mao, roosevelt, etc are, they are innocent of the crimes committed by soldiers and police at their behest. the soldiers and police who actually committed the crimes are accountable and not some slime bag behind the scenes.

this is the number one reason why people of conscience should never seek the employ of criminal organizations. you will be the true criminal. are you a soldier? do not reenlist. are you a policeman? seek legitimate employment. are you a thief? respect the property of others.

stumbling over exceptionalism

2010-03-20T12:27:00.000-07:00

as i get older i realize that many of the long-enduring cliches remain in use for a good reason. mostly because they represent aspects of life that must be repeated over and over. they are items that seem to escape the grasp of common sense for most people. one such example is "never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes".

people rarely stop to think about how they might feel or act if in a situation in which they see others. the phenomenon is magnified with distance or cultural boundaries. i often hear people call for action of this or that nature against iran. they're building nuclear weapons! they're a terrorist state! i'm no advocate of any state, of course, but think about it from iran's perspective.

they haven't aggressed against another country in over 200 years. the world's most aggressive government is breathing down their necks threatening bomb raids on their power facilities that both the IAEA and the u.s.' own intelligence reports deny are developing nuclear weapons. the countries on the east and west side have already been aggressively invaded and destroyed based on lies of the same nature.

now what if, here in the u.s., the same situation were happening? what if mexico and canada had both been invaded and destroyed by china under false pretense? what if china were threatening to invade and destroy the u.s.? what if they had already bullied the rest of the world into supporting economic sanctions? would these same people who support action against iran also support action against their own country? if not, why not?

i hear the same thing about a so-called muslim conspiracy. "they're trying to take over the world"! "islam is a violent religion - just read the qu'ran"! does anyone have any idea how hard it is to organize people? like everyone, muslims are a widespread, culturally diverse group. not only that, but like most other people, the first thing they are concerned with is surviving at the highest quality of life possible. do they procreate at a higher rate than many other cultural groups? maybe, but so do catholics. i don't hear any alarmism about them taking over.

i've seen the snippets of the qu'ran cited to support the claim that islam, by its nature, is violent. has anyone read the old testament recently? where's the outcry about that?

forget about racial, cultural and religious differences. people will, first and foremost, attempt to survive as best they can. they aren't, on any scale, worried in their day to day lives what the percentage of whom is in the world. they don't care about what your life is like, or about what your religion is. they do worry about themselves and rightly so. they don't want to be bombed by governments. they don't want to be starved by the "international community" (especially for the actions of a government they can't control - everyone should be able to identify with that) and they don't care about taking over the world.

try to think of others as people, just like you, because that's what they are. think about their situation before you call for their extermination. exceptionalism, or the idea that "we're better than everyone because we're us", is a stumbling block for everyone in their understanding of others. don't judge them before you've walked a mile in their shoes.

the socialist religion

2010-03-09T07:43:00.000-08:00

the ideas of socialism, or the titled control of the means of production by the state, are alive and well among the masses. even those denouncing the new u.s. president as a socialist, are, mostly unknowingly and out of ignorance, hardcore socialists themselves.

as mentioned above, socialism is government titled control of the means of production. that means that the state overtly controls the production of goods and services rather than private companies or other private groups. the vast majority of people have no idea what constitutes socialism and so they oppose nationalized health care, while supporting medicare or they oppose the takeover of GM while "supporting the troops".

the ideas and ideology of socialism have been debunked, both theoretically and empirically, by economic science (namely, by the austrian school of economics, the only true source of credible economics) and by the utter failure of the system in practice. socialism has not and never can result in anything other than the destruction of economies and the impoverishment of societies. there's a simple reason for this: because state control of the factors of production intrinsically assumes that the state holds a coercive monopoly over various market segments, it lacks competition. because there are no competitors by which to give rise to market pricing, there is no way for the monopolist to determine the proper allocation of resources, nor is there incentive to do so. it doesn't matter who's in charge of the monopoly, or which reforms are made to it, it simply lacks the necessary information, by the fact of its own existence, to perform the given functions.

never-the-less, socialists persist. there are two types, generally. those with political aspiration and those without. the former group usually won't care about the facts of the destructive nature of socialism. they will generally pursue it because it is very effective at doing what it was truly designed to do: transfer wealth and power from legitimate society to the political class. the latter group, however, generally consist of the dupes of the former group. they've been taught socialism's religion by those in control of a state monopolized educational system. they don't realize that it can never benefit society. hell, they rarely even know the definition of the word. they aren't evil, but ignorant and they consist of the majority of people on the planet.

that is why many will criticize their own nebulous idea of "socialism", yet support it in practice. if one supports the military to defend, well, anything, they are a socialist. that means that they support state monopolized defense. it's cut and dried. if one supports "the police", then that person is a socialist. if one supports "the justice system", that person is a socialist. whether they like the idea or not, they support state monopolized markets regardless of the fact that they have been discredited theoretically and regardless of the fact that they have never produced results in practice.

those "practical socialists", as they might be called, can rarely conceive of the notion of market-based solutions to defense, security or justice, mainly because they have never known such things. because the state has "always" controlled those areas, they know no other means. but, logically, if one supports state control of defense, why oppose state control of the auto industry? if one believes (erroneously) that socialism is the best solution for the most important aspects of a society, why not support it for those less important? if socialism is best for justice, then why not something comparatively less important, like housing, or transportation, or consumer goods? if it works for domestic security, why not for food production? if socialism works, it works.

the fact is that socialism is nothing more than a secular religion. it has no theoretical or practical foundation and is completely devoid of any result advancing society. it is a mantra, chanted by the mislead populace, ingraining in their own minds what they see as necessary control over them by the power elite. never mind the failure of their ideals and the universal victories of the markets, they are the disciples of insanity.

open your mind, humanity. deep down, you know there's something wrong. learn, understand and become free.

ownership vs. control

2010-02-15T15:22:00.001-08:00

this region of the world, on the north american continent, commonly referred to as the "united states" has a massive crime problem. large areas are occupied and restricted by criminal organizations. of course i'm referring to governments occupying "public land".

a friend and i like to go out to a local public school and play with an aerobie (greatest flying toy ever!). we've never had any problems with the gubment there, but we used to have problems when we played at a nearby park. they'd close the park from time to time for no apparent reason. as you might expect, we played there anyway. inevitably, some low-level bureaucrat would appear to shoo us away. if these guys were of any level of wit, i'd have loved to ask them from whence they derive their authority.

authority over property can be derived only from the property owner or his agent. now, the guy who informed us of our unwelcomeness was an agent of the the city, but does the city have authority over property?

you may have heard the misguided phrase "ownership is control". libertarians reject this. ownership is, in fact, not necessarily control, nor is control, ownership. the city controls the park in the same way that a car thief controls a vehicle - through force. a car thief can't own a car he's stolen because he didn't come into control of it through legitimate, or voluntary means. ownership can never be the product of involuntary interaction, whether it be theft, murder, extortion or occupation. similarly, the city, or any other government, can not own anything because it gains all that it has through direct or indirect force or the threat thereof. it can only hope to control property, not own it.

governments do not own roads, parks, buildings or anything else. they only control them. they secure funding for, build and maintain these things by force alone, often forcibly excluding competition in the process. people will often make the argument that if you don't believe that government should exist and that how governments obtain property is wrong, then don't use the roads, libraries, etc. i solemnly swear i will never use anything that the government owns (which is nothing). the roads i drive on belong to no one and i feel free to use unowned property as i wish.

control is not ownership. hopefully, owners control their property, but governments also control property without owning it. it's important to understand the difference.

property defense and proportional force

2010-02-13T20:26:00.001-08:00

when discussing topics libertarian, there inevitably arises the question of rights defense. this is one of the most contested and controversial of the philosophy. of course, that fact alludes to it being one of the most vital. there are various takes on the issue; here, i will interject my own thoughts.

we know what rights are and where they come from, but what actions are acceptable to defend them? i maintain that rights are, in practicality, little more than the tacit agreement between two parties to respect the property of one another. the violation of this agreement, through the violation of property, relieves the offended party of the obligation to respect the offender's property. when property is violated, there are two possible scenarios: the violator is caught in the act, or he is not. we are only concerned here with former. in the latter, the violator must be identified, charged and restitution arranged. the question revolves around the violator being caught in the act of harming property and the steps one may take to defend property. often property defense may require the use of some force, but does a person have the right to use any amount of force to defend his property against any violation?

let's take an example. bob owns an apple orchard. john walks onto bob's orchard and takes an apple. bob sees john violating his property and shoots and kills john in order to defend it. most people would agree that bob's use of lethal force to defend his property against a minimal violation is unreasonable. murray rothbard, arguably the leading philosophical voice in in the libertarian movement, addressed this question with the concept of "proportional force". rothbard's idea was that one has the right to defend his property with whatever amount of force is necessary to repel a violator, but no more. in other words, he may use "proportional force"; force in defense proportional to the force used by the aggressor.

where the problem arises, is when this is translated into enforcement. in reality, how will this be acted upon? in the rush to defend one's property, there is little time to sit down and negotiate with the criminal on how much force he is planning to use to violate property in order to formulate an appropriate amount of resistance. in addition, the definition of what is proportional will be different for each individual and some will claim any arbitrary amount of force to be too much and some will disagree. some may say that bob's use of lethal force was not unreasonable, most would probably say that is was. but rights are not up to majority rule. rights, such as the right to property, are absolute. the most appropriate point is how society, the final arbiter, reacts to such uses of force?

though bob may, technically, have the right to use lethal force against john for violating his property, the exercising of said right doesn't happen in a vacuum. if john's brother, tom, found out that his brother had been killed by bob for stealing an apple (later, it was found out that the destitute john was merely trying to feed his children) and retaliated against bob with force of his own out of anger, tom's reaction would, like john's, be a violation of bob's property. but, which arbitrator would, under pressure of a certainly sympathetic market, punish tom severely? remember that all arbitrators in the stateless society are under the constant pressure of the markets they serve. if an arbitrator were to mete out a harsh punishment to tom for his actions, how would the market served react? would they be more or less likely to find favor with such an arbiter? the disproportionality of the use of defensive force will affect how justice is applied and as such force becomes more disproportional, so does the disadvantage in seeking justice for retribution. this doesn't even take into account the inevitable hit bob's reputation will take in the society he attempts to function in. screw you, bob. i don't want to buy your apples and i won't sell you my peaches!

this is a place where philosophy and consequence inevitably meet. in the example, both john and his brother, tom, were violator's of bob's property. but bob brought upon himself a disadvantage to justice when he used disproportional force to protect his property from john's initial violation. proportional force can't be used as a philosophical absolute because its definition is subjective. the idea of proportional force is not one that can be adequately accounted for philosophically, but is a consequence of the functioning of the market society. it is not a philosophical axiom, but a guide in the practical application of justice.

monetary inflation and social decline

2010-02-01T17:05:00.000-08:00

i've been thinking recently about the more subtle roles the state plays in the decline of society. one of these is the effect of monetary inflation on the time preference of market participants at the consumer level and how it manifests in a culture.

monetary inflation refers to the increase in the supply of currency. all things being equal, the inevitable result of an increase in the currency supply is a rise in prices, called "price inflation". price inflation is what most people envision when they hear of inflation in the general sense, though the technical, economic definition of "inflation" is a rise in the supply of currency.

time preference is the economic concept referring to the present values of present and future goods. in simpler terms, it is the extent to which individuals value consumption now at the expense of consumption later as opposed to consumption later at the expense of consumption now. those with higher time preference favor consumption now rather than later, placing a higher value on present goods than on future goods. the opposite is true of those with a lower time preference, preferring to save now in order to consume later.

in a society where the currency is constantly inflated and, consequently, prices continue to rise as the value of the currency decreases, the incentives for saving are decreased. the incentive to move out of holding currency is great considering that there is a negative return. conversely, the incentive to spend money (consume) now is increased as prices rise and are anticipated to continue rising. at the level where market participants have stored wealth, such a scenario creates asset bubbles, as wealth seeks a higher yield in investments that may not be sustainable under current market conditions. at the level where stored wealth is more shallow, where most of society resides, consumerism becomes stronger as the incentive to save is diminished.

as this phenomenon prevails, individuals no longer have incentive to exercise the self control necessary to forgo present consumption in favor of consumption later. this lack of self control may manifest itself in a culture, decreasing industriousness and responsibility in favor of leisure and gratification. we may see this at various areas in an affected society, resulting in more single parent households as the discipline needed to keep families together is diminished as well as the discipline needed to start families from a solid foundation. broad capital investment also suffers as savings, from which capital expenditure is derived, are depleted through spending on non-productive items in the consumer sector. this lack of capital funding undermines the productivity and economic progression of societies. these factors ultimately result in the decline of a civilization in varying degrees.

in reality, such phenomena result from inflation brought about by central banks in a nearly constant fashion as governments continually seek to transfer wealth from society to the politically connected. this suits the purpose of government as such wealth transfer is poorly understood by its victims (a likely outcome of state education) and also results, as described above, in a populace without the will, knowledge or incentive to resist such wealth transfer.

government isn't what it is by chance and is the most brilliant and successful of all criminal enterprises. it is responsible, in many ways, for the decline of civilizations, the above simply one of those. a consequence of the artificial increasing of time preference in a general population may be poisonous for the future of said society in the aftermath of inevitable governmental collapse, by leaving in its wake a helpless and childlike populace that is vulnerable to the rise of a similar state eager to poach the remains of wealth.

is this one of the reasons that states are able to persist despite their inherent instability, parasitic and self-destructive natures? they create for themselves the society that they desire, thereby ensuring, like a virus, their own perpetuation, changing the behavior of the host to suit the needs of the disease.

martin luther king jr. - hero?

2010-01-16T16:48:00.000-08:00

today is the federal holiday designated to honor the dr. reverend martin luther king jr., a man widely recognized as the premier leader of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. his efforts did a great deal to bring about the passing of the civil rights act of 1964.

king is regarded as a hero among the majority of mainstream americans for his courageous campaign against racial discrimination in the united states and his outspoken opposition to u.s. involvement in the vietnam war. while i share his opposition to racism and war, and admire his dedication and courage in his pursuits, i wish to dispel the myth of his heroism and expose his ideas as morally corrupt and the product of logic stemming from false premises.

what should stand out first to the casual observer is that king is "honored" with a federal holiday. anything or anyone with its own federal holiday should at once be considered suspect. criminal organizations like the u.s. federal government don't honor anything that doesn't empower them against the unfortunate society burdened by their existence. king's role in bringing about the civil rights act of 1964 is considered by most as his greatest accomplishment, it was, in fact, a great setback to freedom in the u.s., empowering the government against private individuals and compromising the rights of property owners.

while king's crusade against racial discrimination was, in my opinion,a noble one, the fact is that people have the right to discriminate against anyone they want at any time and for any reason. while most of us despise such discrimination, we do not have the right to impose our beliefs onto others through force, which is what the civil rights act of 1964 does. the act contains provision for the outlawing of discrimination in virtually all private matters in title 2 and title 7. this use of force in private matters is likely to have hindered race relations by creating a social "grudge" between races not open to such integration at the time that has persisted even until today.

king advocated the forced redistribution of wealth by government to "disadvantaged americans" to compensate for historical wrongs. while it is undeniable that actions of the past have been a setback to certain groups in the u.s., advocating the redistribution of wealth in the present to right such setbacks is morally wrong. though i ardently advocate restitution of victims by aggressors against their person or property, it is a logical non sequitur to force such restitution to those not directly harmed by such attacks by those who didn't perpetrate the aggression. forcing americans to compensate the descendants of transgressions is just such an example. as illustrated above, discrimination in itself is the right of the individual and does not constitute such a transgression. slave-holding, on the other hand, does. all slave holders should be forced to compensate all slaves, since they aggressed against the person and property of such people. the lack of such justice, while in itself a tragedy, does not justify forcing the descendants of slave holders, who never held slaves, to compensate the descendants of slaves, who were never slaves.

king also advocated a move toward "democratic socialism" citing that "something is wrong with capitalism", probably stemming from a common misunderstanding of the difference between capitalism and corporatism and a lack of understanding of the role of profit in the functioning of markets in society. such ideas are based on the idea that some people (those calling themselves "government") have the right to redistribute the property of others. if that's so, what gives those people the right to the property of others? wasn't king's agenda rights equality?

probably the brightest spot in king's legacy was his opposition to the vietnam war. even here, though, one can see king's cognitive dissonance. king said, "(the u.s. government is) the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today", and who could deny that that statement is just as true today as it was then. the problem starts with king's recognition that the u.s. government is violent, but he doesn't seem to understand that foreign peoples are not the only recipients of such violence. king's own actions brought about violence against the person and property of u.s. citizens at home by stopping them, through force or the threat of force, from exercising their right to discriminate. he also seems oblivious to the fact that democratic socialism requires violence to force wealth away from some in order to give to others. while i admire king's stance against war, he was confused on the issue of violence and what, exactly, constitutes violence - namely, the use of force against individuals and their property.

for all of his virtues; courage, persistence and dedication, king's actions, all-in-all, were a stepping stone for government's increased power to crush individual rights in america and further impede upon freedom. his ideas evolved from a mixture of people from the heroic, such as ghandi, tolstoy, thoreau and Jesus Christ, to the evil, such as lincoln and marx. without a firm ethical principle, king's legacy is a mixture of good and evil, tainted by the fact that his federal recognition stems not from virtue or ideal, but government empowerment.

logic - it's not that difficult.

2010-01-10T12:25:00.000-08:00

i get subscribed, somehow, to all kinds of email lists (i even get automated calls from congressional reps- how the hell did they get my number?). a couple of them have been these independent news sources, like "truthout" or "reader supported news".

well, rsn sent out its daily email with the usual links to news and opinion stories on it. one, "The Other Plot to Wreck America", claimed that "Americans must be told the full story of how Wall Street gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then left millions of households in ruin." as might be expected, the author was going to tell us, as if the story was a mystery to begin with. look at the article yourself. no mention of the role of the federal reserve. not one! and this is the "full story"? sorry, guy, but you left out a small part - a small, 90% part.

why bother with all the complex "analysis"? why not make it easier and more fun by chalking this stuff up to some ancient fairy plot, or a mysterious unicorn/leprechaun curse? if you're going to promote b.s., at least make it interesting. what i really want to know is why promote it at all? is it because you get paid by interested parties? is because you want to make a name for yourself by ingratiating yourself to the power elite? do you want to be thought of as a smart guy by those even more ignorant than you? heck, maybe you just like writing, for writing's sake, but don't care enough about the subject matter to do any research.

here's some advice, frank rich. any conclusion following logically from a false premise will be false. so, when you get ready to write, check your premise, then you won't look like a fool to those of us who are knowledgeable. of course, with public education having the unavoidable effect that it does, we may be such a small percentage that it doesn't matter. get rid of that idea that the state can ever be the solution to any problem, then you can be taken seriously by serious people.

if rsn wants me to donate to their organization, they're going to have to give me something i can't get somewhere - no, make that anywhere else. because i can get claptrap anywhere. if i want some doofus telling me a story based on false premises, advocating absurd solutions to the problem, i'll consult the mainstream media for free, thanks.

i know it's an opinion piece, but does rsn consider everything fit to print? i never asked to be subscribed to rsn's listserve, but, to be honest, i don't mind giving something a try. i have to actively avoid the crap from the mainstream media, but when i have to avoid the same crap in my inbox? sorry rsn, but "unsubscribe".

take your crap and pedal it to morons.

the state: spinning straw from gold

2009-11-18T03:22:00.000-08:00

the people's republic of california has decided to ban large screen televisions in an attempt to free up power for household use. because we're so used to the inefficiency of government controlled resources and because most people have a glaring lack of understanding of such things, it seems a little shocking, but otherwise passe.

slightly underneath the surface is the great example of how government turns assets into liabilities. in a market, where assets (such as power grids and power generation) are used to generate profits and are subject to competition, there is every incentive to respond to an increase in demand with an increase in production. more basically, assets under private control must be maintained in a manner conducive to production.

governments, on the other hand, have no such incentive. governments derive their funding through violence. they force consumers to pay for their "services" after eliminating any competition by threat. they don't need the assets under their control to generate revenue. in this situation, these assets become liabilities that must be maintained at the expense of revenue with no added benefit. in other words, because assets are not needed to generate revenue, the cost of their maintenance makes them liabilities. therefore, the incentive is not to maintain them. this is readily seen in roads, sewers, power grids, etc, where maintenance is always poor and the services are highly unresponsive to demand.

the fact that california is banning certain televisions in order to reduce demand for power should come as no surprise. the state has no incentive to increase production and has the means to use force to curb power consumption. by enacting these laws, they will not have to take the necessary steps upgrade power generation assets which does nothing but drag on the revenue of the government. this is why california experienced the blackouts of a few years ago and why they will continue to have power generations problems for the foreseeable future.

the solution? simple. get such assets out of the hands of government and into the hands of private companies in an unregulated power market.

the police market

2009-11-17T18:27:00.001-08:00

last year, wrote a couple of entries about the market alternatives to state-monopolized justice and regional defense. i sort of passed off the police issue because the ideas were so similar to those above and i just didn't feel like spending the time to do it. well, there is widespread confusion about the idea of "final arbiters", or those who would be final deciders of disputes.

i realized that without a discussion of police/dispute resolution, the final arbiter post would be difficult to understand for those who had never heard of such an issue. so, i'll briefly explain the market's vastly superior alternative to state-monopolized (socialist/corporatist) police.

in the current system, the government controls the services of police, or those agents legally authorized to use force against others. if you are naive enough, the supposed reason for state police is to secure the person or property of others. of course, as with any coercive monopolist, state police do anything but this. since they lack any competition and are able to force their "customers (victims?)" to pay for their "services", they need not conform to the desires of the market - after all, who are they going to lose customers to? consequently, law enforcement becomes arbitrary and self-serving, with police routinely violating the person and property of others through the enforcement of drug laws, property maintenance regulations, victimless traffic violation enforcement, licensing schemes, warrant enforcement for victimless crimes, asset forfeiture schemes, etc. not only is this not what the market would demand (would you pay for this if you didn't have to?), but it is the very thing that it is supposedly founded to prevent, i.e. a criminal organization.

left to the market, this type of organization could not exist. there is plenty of demand for the security of person and property and security entrepreneurs recognize this. but because this demand is universal, no agency would be able to maintain a presence in the market that is based on the violation of such security with all other security firms specifically designed to prevent this. in a market, firms have limited resources and must rely on their ability to provide consumers with goods and services that best suit their needs at the best possible price, lest they be overrun by competitors.

unlike government, there are true checks on the power of such firms. one cannot decide to go after the property of its own customers, or the customer will simply refuse to continue to pay for the services of said company and enlist the help of another. it can't go after the property of non-customers, or it risks being targeted by the firms employed by those individuals. in the market environment, reputation is everything and a company that uses its firepower to go after the property of others will quickly find that,not only will it lose the customers directly affected, but others will see the corruption and flee to the greener pastures of other providers.

but what stops a very successful company from amassing the force necessary to simply establish a government? first, isn't it ironic that the scary thing about this is the establishment of government? most who would ask this question are supporters of government in one way or another, which makes the question kind of funny. i'm theorizing here, so it's impossible to say exactly what will or won't happen under such conditions. that said, it would be very difficult for any company, even one that had managed to establish a monopoly in a certain area (which has never been done in any market sector). in order to do this, one would have to amass the resources in soldiers, firepower, infrastructure, etc. this would require massive funding and would be very difficult, if not impossible to hide. on its own, this would be a great disincentive to such an endeavor. obviously, such a company would already be doing very well in its business, so the incentive to do something like this would have to be very high, since the consequences of failure would be enormous.

so, the market is much safer and more effective at providing security to those who demand it than is the government (surprise!) and has many more real safeguards to the abuse of power.

the justice and security markets go hand-in-hand. if a police agency catches a criminal, how will they prosecute them? the justice post linked to above should answer that question, but the question remains for those who have legitimate disputes over property or the violation of it. how does one get people to agree to go to court? couldn't they just refuse to go and never have to answer for their crimes? this is where the question of the final arbiter comes in. who will, ultimately, decide right and wrong, if someone refuses to cooperate with decisions rendered by voluntary dispute resolution firms? i'll address that in the next post.

the final arbiter

2009-11-15T10:24:00.001-08:00

before reading this post it would be instructive to read these first: "the state and the justice market", "the state and national defense" and "the police market".

a common question in theorizing the stateless, or anarchist, society is that of the "final arbiter". the question revolves around the scenario of a dispute that arises between two parties. one claims that the other has violated his property. nothing has been proven, so no force may be used. the plaintiff's dispute resolution company calls the defendant's company, but the defendant refuses to go to arbitration for the charges. he has not been proven to be responsible for the violation of anything.

what to do?

first, let's find out what the incentives are. if the companies involved are unable to cooperate, then what good are they? if your cell phone company can't connect you to your contacts on other carriers, what good is a cell phone? the incentives are for the various companies to cooperate with each other. in agreeing to provide service to people, they must draw up the conditions for such service and have the customer agree to abide by the contract. in such contracts will be stipulations concerning which arbitrators will be used, how many appeals may be made for a given decision, etc.

the defendant, by refusing to honor the arrangements of his provider, runs an almost certain risk of being dropped by that provider, leaving him without protection. if he is able to get coverage with another provider, his costs will be much higher. for in the anarchist society, reputation is everything. once he is identified as a high risk, everything becomes more difficult. by complying with the arrangements made by his company (which would almost assuredly include compensation for his time by the plaintiff if found innocent), he may, if found guilty, pay for the damage done and be on his way with the minimum amount of damage done to his reputation.

this is instructive, but none of it answers the question of the who the final arbiter is. as mentioned above, reputation in the anarchist society is everything. it must be known in order to secure protection, so that agencies will know who is a risk and who isn't, by banks for the same reason, by employers, by insurance companies or even by those simply wishing to do business with the best customers. in the anarchist society, the reputation business is big.

needless to say, those who monitor reputation will know who is refusing to comply when charges are brought against him. every time such infractions are made, it makes life more difficult. the more serious the charges that are not answered to, the more one's reputation is hurt. a person with a bad reputation is squeezed to the margins of society and is less and less able to afford his own protection - leaving him open to attack by his unsatisfied accusers.

there need not be an authority with the power to force people to answer for crimes. such things can be handled in a much more effective and civilized manner by voluntary means. it is in everyone's interest, individually, to participate.

who is the final arbiter? society itself.

veteran's day is nothing to celebrate

2009-11-10T11:35:00.000-08:00

here's another emotionally charged topic on an emotionally charged day. maybe not the best time to bring it up, but i'll try to be polite and not as aggressive as i've been in the past. it's an important idea and people need to give it a fair shake.

when it comes to the military, many of us have relatives and friends who are or have been involved in it. for me, my grandfather was a POW in WW2, my dad was a reservist and so was i, so i have the same kind of exposure to the military (maybe more) as many others. of course, because we are all taught to love and respect military service and the soldiers who are involved, the subject has a much more emotional rather than logical overtone. people will yell and scream if any resistance to the idea of military worship is questioned, regardless of the fact that the argument (if you can call such things "arguments") has little logical merit, but instead usually consists of cliches and platitudes with little supporting reasoning.

first, the military is supported by various means, the main ones being taxation and inflation. inflation is the theft of the value of your money, without your consent. taxation is the theft of your money directly; it is taken from you, by threat, without your consent. this is not, by any definition, freedom.

secondly, it is questionable as to whether the military actually defends the country at all. the united states has not been invaded in nearly 200 years. since then, it has been involved in many foreign conflicts, most, if not all have been unnecessary for the security of the united states. in world wars 1 and 2, vietnam, iraq 1 and 2, afganistan, grenada, korea, etc., there was no direct threat to the united states. during the pearl harbor, uss cole, and khobar towers incidents, the military was unable to protect itself, much less the u.s. mainland. during the terrorist attacks of 2001, the military was unable to protect americans at home.

considering the massive and forced funding of the military, it has a less than stellar record of effectiveness, which is to be expected of a purely socialist enterprise. yes, socialist. socialism is the titled state control of the means of production. the state holds titled control over the means of production in "defense". therefore, the military is a socialist institution.

the cliches would have you believe that the military is necessary for maintaining the freedom of americans. this blog is based on the idea that americans are not free at all. virtually all of the posts here will reflect that issue. considering that the military is funded by force might lead one to believe that the military is, in fact, a detriment to freedom rather than a support. this doesn't include the impact of military actions abroad, on civilian populations. because of the wide and indiscriminate nature of warfare, the populations directly affected by military operations are much less free.

hang with me here. it gets worse, but then it gets better.

concerning the indiscriminate nature of war: any action that knowingly results in the death of innocent people is murder. therefore, war involves massive amounts of murder. the military is funded by theft in order to finance murder. that is in opposition to freedom on every level.

but veteran's day is not so much about military adventurism, but about the people who participated in it. these aren't bad people. in fact, many of them are probably some of the best people society has to offer. unfortunately, sadly, these people were duped by the propaganda that their participation in the military is the highest nobility achievable. what's sad is that they give so much to a cause that they are led to believe is great and noble, but is, in fact, evil. my grandfather spent 9 months in a german prison camp after his A-10 was shot down over germany in WW2. he went into the camp weighing 160 lbs and escaped weighing 95 lbs. not to mention the millions of americans who were killed in the united states' unnecessary involvement in this war - what a terrible price to pay - for what?

veteran's day should be a time of mourning for all of those killed or injured in the myriad military adventures of the u.s. government. it should be a day to reflect on the evils of the state and those whose lives were ended or negatively altered by the tragedy of war.

don't celebrate veteran's day. instead, think of the evil of government and the sad reality of the great people who have been lost in something as useless and wrong as the military - especially when they could have lived up to their potential in the productive and peaceful sector. encourage current members not to reenlist and discourage others from enlisting. save your friends, family and even strangers from the evils of military participation.

anarchism: divisions and similarities

2009-11-07T17:55:00.000-08:00

anarchism is the fundamental and unbending belief in the libertarian principle of non-aggression; that no one has the right to aggress against the person or property others, summed up in the NAP.

there are various divisions of anarchism based on subjective ideological preferences, the big three being anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism. these ideologies differ from the state versions in the fact that none of them wish to impose such ideologies upon others, but to voluntarily associate.

all of these, however, fit under common headings. all anarchists are market anarchists. all market anarchists are libertarians. being that the NAP is the basis for libertarianism, anarchism must fit beneath that heading because no true anarchist can support the rule of one over others. all anarchism must fall beneath the heading of market anarchism because, in order for conditions to be conducive to people engaging in voluntary socio-economic arrangements, there can be no restrictions on markets, which facilitate free exchange and cooperation in whatever form, not to mention that there must be rule over others in order to eliminate markets.

a diagram explaining the above paragraph:

in the condition of free markets, all are able to decide which arrangements they prefer whether they be communists, syndicalists, capitalists or any combination of the three or something else entirely. often, the collectivist anarchists (communists and syndicalists) will deny the need for a free market in an anarchist society, but it usually stems from an incomplete understanding of markets and a general tendency to conflate free markets and capitalism. admittedly, capitalism tends to flourish under free markets, but it need not exist at all for free markets to exist.

i admit to being an advocate of capitalism. it is the best way to provide the highest quality of life (measured in traditional terms) for the most people given limited resources. that said, my allegiance to capitalism is thin. it is merely a practical support, not an ideological one. if the markets were to determine that society be composed of various communes without a representative constituency of capitalists, i would gladly accept communism and be happy to live free.

as should be the case with any true anarchist, one's anarchism should come first and all other ideological considerations should be secondary.

sanctions are an abomination

2009-10-02T21:36:00.000-07:00

in its incessant march to war, the u.s. government has called for increased sanctions on iran. what this means is that the u.s. wants to forcibly restrict the trade that iranians are able to do outside of iran by cutting off supply lines through legal action (or, the threat of force).

these sanctions are nothing more than placing the boot of government on the throats of not only iranians, but everyone who does business with them. we see here in the u.s. that the government will continue to grow in wealth and power regardless of economic conditions. the u.s. state has cranked down its grip on us and increased its power happily , even as we struggle under the weight of the crisis it created. the same is true for those suffering under the regime in iran. no matter how difficult things are, the iranian government will thrive at the expense of the people, consequences be damned! the application of sanctions will do nothing to curb the behavior of the iranian government (not to mention the reasons why such curbs are totally unnecessary), but it will only serve to further burden the innocent people of iran. it may even strengthen the support of the iranian regime in iran by being threatened by an aggressive foreign power.

but sanctions don't only hurt the people of the country they are imposed upon, but also the prosperity of anyone doing business with them. imagine all the business done with iranians in the united states. with the imposition of sanctions, those american's livelihoods are also being threatened. why should they have to suffer?

add to this that all of it is completely unnecessary.

sanctions don't hurt governments, only the innocent people subject to them. like all of the actions of governments, no one wins but them.

the coming war of aggression on iran

2009-09-30T21:02:00.000-07:00

the drumbeat is pounding in the media for war against iran. as with most drives to war, it is the brainchild of the most evil and unscrupulous of sociopathic monsters as they campaign against civilization in search of power and wealth for the few at the enormous cost of the many. well, sorry guys, but this just doesn't hold water - not that it has to to convince the wayward majority of undereducated americans.

1) iran is an NPT signatory. that means that they, unlike india, pakistan and israel - all of which have nuclear ties to the united states, have signed an international treaty promising not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. they have the right, under article 4 of that treaty, to use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. the group entrusted to inspect the activities of NPT signatories, the IAEA, insists that iran is compliant with all such requirements; a fact confirmed and reconfirmed by u.s. intelligence reports.

2) the u.s and israeli claims that the new enrichment facility in Qom is "secret" are lies. the site has, in fact, been under surveillance by u.s. spies for years and was voluntarily reported by iran to the IAEA ahead even, of the requirements of the NPT.

3) iran is a non-aggressive country. iran has not attacked any countries in centuries, unlike its main two protagonists, the united states (attacked afganistan in 2001 and iraq in 2003) and israel (attacked lebanon 2007 in and syria in 2003) - two of the most openly aggressive governments in the world.

4) for the nth time, ahmadinejad never said anything about israel being "wiped off the map". that was nothing but devious anti-iranian propaganda. here's the actual quote: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." in english: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". i'm obviously no fan of "regime change" in the way that governments use it, because it usually means that civilians will be killed en masse, but is it any different than what the u.s. and israeli governments have been advocating for years with regard to iran? irony, anyone? at least the quote is from the head of a non-aggressive state directed toward a far more belligerent one.

5) it's a great idea having governments disarmed in every sense and certainly in the nuclear one, but why focus on iran when the only government in history to ever actually use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, twice(!) is still in control of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal? while we're at it, why not have the only country in the middle east possessing nuclear weapons sign the NPT?

6) it's almost crazy for iran NOT to be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. imagine if canada and mexico had been invaded and occupied by the most aggressive government on the planet with the world's largest nuclear arsenal and it was threatening to invade the united states. what would be the reaction here? would it be a good idea to have some nukes to try to deter such an attack? then imagine the feeling in iran with the u.s. occupying both afganistan on one side and iraq on the other, and actively threatening to bomb iran.

7) any military action against iran and especially war, will undoubtedly result in the deaths of many iranian civilians. this is outright mass murder. committing actions that will knowingly result in the deaths of innocent people is murder. would those advocating war with iran also condone the bombing of civilians in the united states because of the actions of the u.s. government? why not? iranian civilians are no different than u.s. civilians- they have no control over what the government they are subjected to does and are just trying to live their lives as best they can from day to day. why murder them?

the arguments for war on iran are completely bogus and their proponents outrageous in their willingness to use hollow propaganda and obvious lies to stump for the financing through theft of their murderous activities. don't get suckered by the state-media's constant table-pounding for war. war is the health of the state and the state is a vicious cancer upon civilization.

artificial culture

2009-08-30T12:40:00.000-07:00

it's often mind-boggling how many cultures and languages there are in the world and how diverse humanity is, considering we all share virtually the same genetic makeup. there are a lot of factors that go into this, like distance, geographic separation, climate, etc. there is one factor, however, that creates some of the most glaring separations of culture that differs from the others. that difference is that this factor requires the use of force from one group of people to contain and separate another. this factor is, of course, government.

when populations are separated from each other, different cultures will arise as each group develops independently of each other, under varying conditions. criminal organizations, like governments, set up barriers, separating populations that would otherwise mix, through the aggressive enforcement of turf boundaries, more commonly referred to as "borders".

governments, the groups responsible for the arising of these artificial cultures, then use the cultural distinctions to stir up the xenophobic nationalism necessary to endear the populace to the government exploiting them. this tailor-made culture enables the state to induce fear and servility by worrying them with such collectivist specters as "the russians", the "muslims", the iranians", "illegal immigrants", "communists", "fascists", etcetera, ad infinitum.

once citizens are scared into sufficient compliance, the state can safely undertake its schemes of power-grabbing and public looting. it will justify shifting stolen (taxed) money to politically connected defense contractors for creating the necessary tools to extend empires by citing the need for "national security". it will remove competition from foreign-owned companies to favor politically connected domestic businesses in the name of "saving domestic jobs". in the name of increased power, it will claim the need to spy on citizens in order to uncover "terrorist plots". when, inevitably, the measures taken prove ineffective, the state will use the same rhetoric to ratchet up their power even more. mencken put it like this:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

all because of the fear of the ever-present, non-danger of foreign predators, governments are able to run roughshod over their victims (who pathetically cling to the very state they are victimized by as it positions itself as a savior), foreign and domestic. the sad part is that all those people that are the subject of "nation A's" fear are on the other side of the border, themselves made fearful by similar rhetoric promulgated by the government exploiting them. so the world is full of artificial cultures, all staring at one another, suspicious and alarmed of the evils lurking across borders.

in fact, all of this is fictional. people in every place, regardless of culture are, by and large, interested in nothing more than living their lives as best they can. they all go to work in order to produce for themselves and their families, they all want to be comfortable, they want peace, they want health, they want happiness.

apprehension may be misplaced, but they all have at least one good reason to fear evils from across borders. those evils are not manifest in cultures, but in the governments that manipulate them. the only goblins that should garner more fear and loathing than foreign governments are domestic ones.

like monsters in the closet, the state's existence requires that people have fear. similarly, flipping on the light switch of awareness makes them all disappear.