When You Pay the State for Protection the Last Thing You Get is Protection

Many people, even minarchists, believe one of the duties of the state is to protect its people. Of course they never seem to accomplish this goal even though we keep being force to pay them. For individuals this means we have to pay the state for “protection” and purchase a means of self-defense to actually protect ourselves. For shipping companies this means they have to build a defensive fleet on top of paying the state its demanded “protection” money:

Shipping insurance companies are taking the fight against piracy into their own hands.

With plans to deploy a “private navy” in the Gulf of Aden — where Somali piracy is rampant — the Convoy Escort Program (CEP) hopes to have a fleet of 18 ships protecting merchant vessels by December, reports David Black at The National.

The $70 million private program is headed by international shipping insurer company Jardine Lloyd Thompson.
“The CEP is planning to buy seven 150-foot fast patrol boats, understood to be ex-Swedish Navy, and has already earmarked 11 former offshore supply vessels for purchase and conversion,” details Black

People often ask how one could afford defense if there was no state and this story demonstrates how. Insurance companies, having to pay out claims on lost ships, are keenly interested in protecting the ships it insures. As the problem with Somali piracy grows the insurance companies have reacted by developing a fleet of its own to protect its clients’ ships.

Every service the state provides can be done so by private entities. Unlike the state, private entities provide their services only to those who wish to acquire them through voluntary trade.

Liberty Will be Crushed

First the Republican National Committee (RNC) threatened to prohibit Nevada from seating any delegates if the state sent “too many” Ron Paul delegates, then higher ups in the Massachusetts Republican Party moved to invalidate votes because “too many” Ron Paul delegates were elected, now members of the Old Guard in the Louisiana Republican Party sicked the dogs on Ron Paul supporters are a conventions:

“I’m handicapped! I need a doctor!” “Sir, this is the chairman!” The Louisiana State Republican Convention descended into chaos Saturday morning, with several delegates being arrested and the convention chairman being thrown to the ground by police. Sources report that state party officials panicked when it became clear that Ron Paul delegates commanded a decisive majority of the delegates on the floor – at least 111 of 180 (62%).


At this point, a motion was made to elect a new convention chairman. Henry Herford, Jr., was elected by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless, Mr. Villere – who had appointed himself the convention chairman – refused to relinquish control of the gathering. As the delegates began turning their chairs around, Mr. Herford, the newly elected chairman, rose to call the convention to order. Sources report that, in an act of desperation, Mr. Villere and state party officials then ordered police to attack Mr. Herford.

Video footage shows an older gentleman in a blue shirt being violently dragged away by police and then shoved to the ground. When Mr. Herford protests that he is handicapped and would like to press charges for assault against the police officers, a Shreveport police officer is seen smirking in response. Sources report that Mr. Herford, 57, has a prosthetic hip that was dislocated during the assault.

There are videos at the link as well. Needless to say this demonstrates how the state works, when it starts feeling threatened it unleashes violence in a desperate attempt to protect its power. When people said Ron Paul was unelectable they were correct, but not for the reasons they believed. They thought Paul wasn’t electable because of his ideas and philosophy, in reality he’s unelectable because the Republican Part has actively rigged the game, they’ve gone so far as to use actual violence to stop Ron Paul from getting delegates.

I hope everybody remembers this election because it is the first one, that I’m aware of at least, where the Old Guard has openly flaunted its power. Previously they rigged the game through procedure, now that they lack the people to continue this task they’re outright lying, cheating, and using violence. We no longer have a government by the people, it’s a government by the government.

You Keep Using that Word

The state never ceases to amuse me. They attempt to turn countless philosophies, movements, religions, and other such organizations into boogeymen but have no idea what they stand for. Take anarchism for example, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) anarchists are merely “Criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities”. That quote, along with various other entirely incorrect information regarding anarchism, was obtained through domestic terrorism training material [PDF]. Let’s take a look at some anarchist criminals who were merely looking for a cause to justify their activities:

Murray Rothbard is obviously a dangerous criminal, what with his suit and bow tie. Wait, I don’t think he was ever actually imprisoned, so much for that theory. Let’s try somebody else:

Jeffrey Tucker is obviously a criminal, look at that bow tie and smile. He’s obviously evil even though he’s only been put into jail once that I’m aware of and that was failing to pay a parking ticket (absolutely dastardly, I know). Perhaps we can find somebody else to fit the narrative:

Hans Herman Hoppe speaks German, and clear sign that he’s a criminal mastermind. Once again this mastermind has managed to avoid arrest and continues to advocate the non-aggression principle and the mutually beneficial nature of the free market. Let’s try again:

Walter Block isn’t fitting the narrative either, damn it. OK, let’s try one more time:

Lysander Spooner was obviously evil. Not only did he create a company that successfully competed with the United States Post Office until the state shut him down but he was also an abolitionist.

OK, the FBI’s narrative isn’t holding up so well. It appears they may be incorrect about anarchists, perhaps they’re not all merely criminals looking for an ideology that justifies their activities. In fact many of the well-known anarchist philosophers appear to be perfectly lawful.

Incorrect generalizations weren’t the only idiotic thing found in the FBI’s training material. The thing I found most amusing is how the training material is entirely inconsistent. Take this example, on page three it’s stated that anarchists are “Highly dedicated to specific cause / ideology.” Page five says anarchists are “Not dedicated to particular cause.” What? So anarchists are highly dedicated to a specific cause but aren’t dedicated to a particular cause?

As I explained in my Anarchism 101 post, anarchism is a vast philosophy that covers individualists and collectivists. Some anarchists are violent revolutionaries while others believe in the non-aggression principle and oppose violent revolution. The FBI doesn’t want to take the time to cover such facts through because it fails to paint anarchists as the evil boogeymen the state would want you to believe they are. Whenever you hear some state organ explain how one group or another is evil, violent, and wants you dead remember this post. If they’re willing to lie about anarchists then they’re willing to lie about anybody.

A New Wave of Transparency

I use the Library of Congress THOMAS system to look up bill quite frequently. Whenever a rumor is going around about a bill I start digging to see if they’re true, false, or somewhere in between (which is the usual case). Unfortunately THOMAS is a clunky pile of shit and, thanks to Congress, will remain that way:

But if you know anything about our federal government, you know that if you if really want to see what Congress is up to, looking at one bill at a time often won’t tell you much. You often need to review multiple bills, or hundreds of bills, such as all the legislation filed by a certain senator or dealing with a certain issue.

For instance, if you really want to see what kind of oddball stuff members of Congress are trying to get exempted from import tariffs this year, like my colleague Mark Flatten recently did, you’ll have to look at more than 2,000 bills.

A web interface that lets us call up and download one bill at a time was really innovative once — say, 15 years ago. But that won’t cut it anymore.

Folks with computers — notably, professional and citizen journalists — would be able to take information about massive numbers of bills and analyze them in myriad ways — if Congress would allow such information to be downloaded from THOMAS in bulk.

It won’t. And, according to a new draft report from the House Appropriations Committee, it won’t be allowing bulk data downloads from THOMAS anytime soon.

Instead of taking a step towards greater transparency, the committee got hung up on whether people would know if the data they’re seeing on the Internet were accurate and really from Congress — “authentication,” they call it.

Their excuse doesn’t even make sense. If we allow bulk downloads of bills people may not be able to “authenticate” them? Bullshit.

THOMAS is one of the best tools in the arsenal of anybody pointing out the failures of the state. Digging through the Library of Congress grants me access to every stupid little bill that is working through the legislative process. Every bill meant to strip us of more freedoms, every bill designed to control our actions, every bill that will redistribute more wealth can be found on THOMAS and the denizens of the Internet are making great use of it. Because of this the state wants to prevent it from being even more useful, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if legislation was passed that deteriorates the already abysmal user experience of THOMAS.

Information is power and the state wants to maintain a monopoly on power.

If You’re in Venezuela Get Out Now

If I have any readers in Venezuela, something I doubt but anything is possible, get the hell out of there:

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

I’ve covered the situation in Venezuela before. Every time they’ve tightened restrictions on private gun ownership crime has only continued to go up. I’m assuming the Venezuelan state isn’t composed entirely of idiots so there must be another reason they’re moving to ban private firearm ownership, and I can guarantee their plans aren’t going to be good for the people living there.

If you living in Venezuela I can only urge you to flee and if you’re unable or unwilling to flee you must not comply with this prohibition. Keep your arms, hide them in the deepest hole you can find that is still accessible to you. Do not willingly be suckered into putting yourself entirely at the mercy of the state, especially since the violent crime rate is so high. Let us not forget the history of gun control:

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

I’m guessing Chavez is either worried about winning the next election, a situation that may require him to seize absolute control and abolish the sham democracy, or he’s planning on doing a massive confiscation of wealth. Venezuela is a Peoples’ Paradise after all and Peoples’ Paradises usually use wealthy individuals as boogeymen to distract the proles from the state’s actions. The wealthy end up being accused of exploiting the working man and keeping wealth tied up so it can’t go to help those in need. Once the people are fired up and ready to accept any action taken against the wealthy, the state moves in, confiscates the wealth, and keeps it while claiming it’s going to be distributed to help those in need.

Using Force to Fight Obesity

Mayor Bloomberg is a special kind of tyrant. He views himself as king of New York and people treat him as such. Like any good monarch he acts like his decrees are divinely inspired and therefore he is justified in using force make the heathens obey. His latest crusade has been against soft drink manufacturers:

The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is calling for a municipal ban on sales of super-sized sugary drinks in an attempt to tackle obesity.

He wants to stop the city’s restaurants, delis, sports stadiums and cinemas from selling large sizes of sweetened soft drinks.


Under the proposals, any bottles of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces would be taken off the shelves in cafes while extra-large options will disappear from restaurant menus.

I would point out that this ban is pointless as most soda isn’t “sugary” as it’s sweetened with corn syrup, a substance that isn’t sugar in any regard, but nobody cares. A far more relevant criticism is the fact the state is willing to use violence to prevent the sale of soft drinks that are above an arbitrarily selected size.

We need to break down Bloomberg’s decree, specifically we need to follow it to its logical end. Let’s say we have a restaurant that gives Bloomberg the middle finger, their customers want 20oz. soft drinks and the restaurant wants to fulfill the wants of its customers. What will happen? Will Bloomberg personally show up and ask the restaurant owner to cease such sales kindly? Will Bloomberg attempt to make a voluntary agreement, a trade in exchange for the restaurant stopping the sale of large soft drinks? No. What Bloomberg will do is sent a bunch of gun toting thus wearing costumes to the restaurant and have them forcefully close the establishment. They’ll likely kidnap the restaurant owner and put him in a cage to boot. After patrons and employees have been removed from the restaurant at gun point the costumed thugs will then start writing extortion notes, commonly referred to as fine. Unless the restaurant owner pays the extortion money he will be held in a cage and the restaurant will continue to be occupied and controlled by the state invaders. Thor help the restaurant owner if he refuses to be kidnapped. If he should resist he will be beaten or even murdered because he dared give his customers what they wanted.

Every law is a threat against the people. Every piece of legislation should read, “Obey or else.” Is it just to threaten somebody with murder just to prevent them from selling soft drinks larger than an arbitrarily selected size? When you boil it down that’s exactly what Bloomberg’s law is, a threat of violence against the people to prohibit voluntary association.

Watch the Gun Control Advocates Jump for Joy

Opponents of Minnesota’s carry laws have been jumping up and down with joy over the news that a permit holder was robbed with his own firearm:

Police said an adult male was walking home in the area when a man, later identified as Merriweather, was walking the other way and suddenly slammed the victim into a parked car.

The victim hurt his arm and wasn’t able to defend himself. Merriweather allegedly searched the victim, eventually finding a pistol, and put it to the victim’s head while demanding valuables. The victim lost the gun and his wallet during the attack, police said.

A minor detail should jump out at anybody reading this article, the victim was incapacitated and thus unable to defend himself. The attacker was searching the victim when he found his firearm, then put the firearm to the victim’s head. It seems to me that the victim wasn’t robbed with his own gun, he was already being robbed before the attacker even came across the firearm. As it’s being reported you would think the attacker was able to wrestle away the victim’s firearm and decided, after gaining control of the weapon, to rob the victim. What actually happened is the victim would have been robbed either way, the attacker had already incapacitated the victim before he came across the firearm.

Either way, opponents of carry laws are absolutely ecstatic. The only way they could be happier is if the attacker and executed the victim because then the headline would read, “Carry permit holder murdered with own gun.” To them it’s irrelevant that it’s taken almost a decade for this to finally happen or that it’s the only case out of 100,000 permit holders. They’re just happy that their claim, “If you carry a gun it’s just going to be taken from you!” finally has some form of validation, no matter how weak it is.

What this story does demonstrate is that firearms aren’t magical talismen. The mere act of carrying one won’t protect you if you’re taken out of the fight before you can utilize it. It won’t stop somebody from blindsiding you, nor will be prevent you from being incapacitated. It’s merely a tool that increases the amount of force you can use to protect yourself.

Don’t Kill Me, Bro

Obama has a fancy little kill list where he can put the names of people he doesn’t like and they will be struck down by a drone whenever a pilot gets around to it. Considering Obama has ordered the deaths of two American citizens it’s apparent that there needs to be some kind of protection, perhaps a Do Not Kill list:

The New York Times reports that President Obama has created an official “kill list” that he uses to personally order the assassination of American citizens. Considering that the government already has a “Do Not Call” list and a “No Fly” list, we hereby request that the White House create a “Do Not Kill” list in which American citizens can sign up to avoid being put on the president’s “kill list” and therefore avoid being executed without indictment, judge, jury, trial or due process of law.

Go sign the petition. Yes, it will be entirely ignored but it would be hilarious to read the White House’s response to it.