Category: Liberty

Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech

Yesterday Ron Paul gave his farewell speech to Congress. It will likely be the last speech opposing war to ever be given in Congress so I highly urge you to read the transcript . His speech can best be summed up as the following: Knock off the violence, it’s not doing anything positive. In his speech Paul condemns state violence against foreign countries and people living in the United States. Sadly he is the last true advocate of free market economics and voluntaryism left in the federal government so we will likely hear no more than lip service paid to peace and economic freedom. Before closing Paul had some valuable advice:

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

[…]

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

Steering this country around can only be achieved by changing the hearts and minds of the individuals living here. That means getting a population that consists heavily of violent individuals who support the use of coercive means to force others to comply with their desires to turn over a new leaf. As you can see it’s an insurmountable tasks and one that is unlikely to be accomplished anytime soon. Still the best way of achieving a non-aggressive society is to live a non-aggressive lifestyle. This doesn’t mean opposing self-defense but opposing the initiation of force.

I’m sad to see Paul leaving but am happy to know he escaped the political system with his immoral soul intact. Americans have spoken and they have indicated a desire to live in a violent redistributive society where rights are mere whims of government officials. People want the wars, they want money taken from others and given to themselves, and they want only the rights they approve to be protected. So long as public opinion continues to support the status quo there is no chance of liberty thriving in this country. Those of us that support liberty must do our best to lead by example in the hope that others will follow in our footsteps. Perhaps some day people will be ready for a society built on non-aggression but that day isn’t today.

I want to thank Ron Paul for promoting non-aggressive ideals in the United States. His contribution to liberty is incalculable as noted by the massive growth of the liberty movement since his presidential bid in 2008.

Creating Fear to Justify Law Enforcement

Consider law enforcement agents for a moment. What is their primary task? Most people would say protecting the public is the primary task of law enforcement but the truth lies in their name: law enforcement. The primary job of law enforcement officers is to enforce the state’s laws. Some of these laws revolve around activities that harm others such as rape, murder, and assault. Most of these laws revolve around activities that don’t harm others such as smoking marijuana, tax evasion, and producing distilled spirits. What the latter category of laws create is a revenue source for the state. Being caught smoking marijuana often involves fines. Evading taxes deprives the state from its stolen goods. Distilled liquors are heavily taxes so producing your own, even for personal consumption, stands to deprive the state of more stolen goods. Effectively law enforcement agents are gloried tax collectors.

Why do law enforcement agents ever protect anybody? It’s not because they’re required to. They offer minor protection because it’s the only way people will put up with them. Think about it. Would you put up with a gang of thugs roving your neighborhood and forcefully taking money from individuals that partook in activities that the gang didn’t approve of? Most people would not and without the support of public opinion the state would be unable to inflict its tax collectors on society. On the other hand people like to be safe so selling them protection is fairly easy. Instead of claiming law enforcement agents exist to expropriate wealth from the people the state sells them as protection officers.

What are they protecting people from? They are primarily protecting people from imaginary threats. The state is very good at making up threats or exaggerating threats. One example of these made up threats is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) numerous arrests of agency-created terrorists. Even though the threat of terrorism in this country is very low the state spends a great deal of time propagandizing the populace into believing terrorism is a common threat. Another interesting example of a state-create threat is hitchhiking:

Before the Second World War, it was a common practice for people in all walks of life. Hollywood films often had cute hitchhiking scenes like the one in “It Happened One Night,” where Claudette Colbert flashes a leg to get a ride. Magazines like Sports Illustrated declared it fun to thumb a ride and, during the war, picking up soldiers was nothing less than a patriotic duty. Even the etiquette doyenne Emily Post gave hitching a green light in the 1940s, offering tips on how to keep the conversation light and impersonal.

But it was the ’60s and ’70s counterculture that embraced hitching as an anti-consumerist, pro-environment celebration of human interdependence. Students were hitchhiking to antiwar demonstrations. Civil rights advocates thumbed rides to register voters in the South. The American automotive industry, by then, had gone into overdrive: there were more cars than ever on the road. Yet an entire generation of young people, it seemed, was on the move without buying them.

This, apparently, irked local police officials, as well as the F.B.I. First, in the late 1950s, the F.B.I. began warning American motorists that hitchhikers might be criminals. A typical F.B.I. poster showed a well-dressed yet menacing hitchhiker under the title “Death in Disguise?”

Demonizing hitchhikers was likely a precursor to stranger danger, another very minor risk exaggerated by the state. Most people naturally fear the unknown and therefore it’s easy for the state to exploit this fear in order to justify its own existence. Hitchhiking, ultimately, can be viewed as a form of mutual aid. Those unable to afford automobiles can cooperate with those who can afford automobiles. High school and college students are well aware of the fact some people can’t afford automobiles. To get around this lack of automobiles many students offer to exchange something; be it gas money, alcohol, or food; for transportation. Through the miracle of cooperation students with automobiles and students without automobiles can come together and benefit one another. Hitchhiking is similar but introduces the risk of unknown persons.

It’s the risk of the unknown that the state exaggerates in order to create fear in the populace. We’re told by law enforcement agents that hitchhikers are dangerous individuals who usually have murder in their hearts. According to the state hitchhikers aren’t looking for a ride, they’re looking for somebody to rape, murder, or torture. By exploiting this threat the state is able to create fear and offer a solution to alleviate that fear, law enforcement. While a majority of law enforcement activities revolve around issuing traffic tickets and enforcing other finable offenses, the people welcome the presences of officers because it alleviates their fear of the unknown.

Fear is one of the state’s most powerful weapons. Because of this they constantly create new fears and then claim they are the sole protection from that fear. We’re constantly told about the dangers of terrorism, strangers, poisonous products, diseased food, greedy capitalists, and other assorted boogeymen. The state then offers to protect us from these dangers, an offer most people gladly accept. Sadly most people can’t see through the propaganda and are doomed to submit to the state’s tyranny for their entire lives.

Consider this thought exercise. Have you ever been the victim of non-state terrorism, assault, or theft? For those of you who have how many times have you been the victims of such crimes? Now, how many of you have been the victims of a speeding ticket, parking ticker, or a tax audit? For those of you who have how many times have you been the victims of such crimes? In all likelihood more people of members of the latter group or, perhaps, both groups. What is more dangerous then? Threats exaggerated by the state or the state itself?

Ending Statism by Giving Statists What They Want

While many gun blogs were telling people to vote one way or another I simply said that you should vote for whoever you wanted, or not. I did throw in a caveat though, I said I hoped everybody got everything their preferred candidates promised. It was actually a rather underhanded wish.

There are two solutions to an ever expanding state. First you can attempt to reduce the state’s expansion. Reducing the state’s expansion is difficult because the state, being an exploitative entity, needs to continue expanding its influence in order to gain more people from whom to rob wealth. Solution two is to allow the state to continue expanding until it inevitably collapses. History shows us that all empires eventually fall. Genghis Khan’s empire fell, Alexander the Great’s empire fell, and Rome fell. The more a state expands the more likely it is to collapse.

Statism is expensive. In order to continue expropriating wealth a state must maintain the support of public opinion. Often maintaining public opinion requires giving the public “free” stuff. The United States keeps giving people more and more stuff. Everything from welfare to Social Security to unemployment benefits to Obamacare are attempts by the state to buy the public’s favor. This is a vicious cycle though because as the public gets more and more from the state they begin to expect more and more. In this regard the public is like a child. If a child wants a toy, is denied the toy by his or her parents, screams and cries, and is gifted with the toy it reinforces the idea that screaming and crying is an effective way of getting desired things. When the state gives the public something it reinforces the idea that the political means is the way to get desired things.

Buying the public’s favor isn’t free, the state needs to obtain the wealth required to provide the stuff that buys the public’s favor from somewhere. This is where the state runs into a problem. In order to obtain more wealth the state must expropriate it but in order to expropriate wealth the state must invest more wealth into the police and military. State expropriation comes in the form of fines, taxes, and conquest. None of those are possible without a coercive force to convince people to pay fines, taxes, and tributes demanded of conquest. The more the state wants to expropriate the larger the threat of violence it must hold. This is the catch-22 of statism. A cycle occurs where the state builds a larger coercive force to expropriate more wealth so it can buy the public’s favor. Eventually the state expropriates so much that its victims will refuse to pay. When somebody is starving to death the threat of violence suddenly becomes far less intimidating. Faced with guaranteed death by starvation or possible death by the state’s gun most people will take their chances and disobey the state. This is the point where public opinion turns against the state and its power begins to wane.

Ending the state can be accomplished by giving statists exactly what they want. If statists want more welfare give them more welfare. If they want more unemployment benefits give them more unemployment benefits. If they want “free” healthcare give them “free” healthcare. The more statists receive the faster the state expands and the sooner its imminent collapse will come. When I hope that statists get everything their candidates promise I mean it because that will serve my goals as well.

Why I’m Hoping Gary Johnson Gets Close to Five Percent of Votes

Although I have no interest in the presidential race this year I must say that I do hope Gary Johnson gets his coveted five percent of the vote. His campaign has continued to state that five percent of the vote will end the two-party system. The idea is that receiving five percent of the popular vote would qualify the Libertarian Party for federal campaign funding next election. While this sounds good on paper the plan as one flaw; it assumes that the Federal Election Committee (FEC) will continue to play by the same rule book during the next election. Assuming the state will play by any set of rules has cause disappointment in the liberty movement before.

The state’s willingness to change the rules whenever its power is threatened is the reason I want Gary Johnson to receive close to five percent of the public votes. As soon as Johnson gets close enough to that five percent to worry the current establishment the FEC will move to raise the required percentage of votes from five percent to 10, 15, or even 20 percent. They will continue move the required percentage high enough to ensure no third party ever qualifies for federal campaign funds. I think the liberty movement needs to see this just as they needed to see the Republican Party change its own rules to ensure a candidate like Ron Paul never came close to threatening the establishment’s power base again.

We will not achieve liberty through the political system because the political system is controlled by those who oppose liberty. Every time we get close to a political goal they move the goalposts back. At the same time they try to hand us table scraps to keep us interesting because they know that their power requires the support of popular opinion. On the other hand the more the move the goalposts back the less popular opinion they enjoy. After Ron Paul was shutdown during the Republican National Convention a good number of people in the liberty movement swore off politics and I think seeing the FEC change the percentage of votes required to get federal funding will cause some more liberty advocates to swear off politics. Piece by piece the state will destroy its own power base of popular opinion and when enough people no longer recognize the state as legitimate it will fall. Therefore I look forward to every step taken by the state to squash the liberty movement. They’re sowing the seeds of their own destruction and I can’t wait until they get what’s coming to them.

How the State Exploits Organic Societal Developments to Sieze Power

I’m continuing to read The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill. For those unfamiliar with the title it explores the development of property rights on the American Frontier (Old West). Chapter six discusses the development of property rights in California and Nevada during the gold rush.

During the start of the time period no formal government existed in the gold rich areas of California. The federal government laid claim to the territory but had no means of enforcing any laws it enacted leaving the people living in the area to develop their own system of law. Laws were primarily developed on a mining camp by mining camp basis. Each camp had its own system of laws related to claims, water rights, and law enforcement that were development organically. This system of private law worked exceedingly well as the mining camps had notably few instances of violence. What violence did exist was usually between two individuals with some kind of private grudge, not all out fights as often portrayed in Hollywood movies.

What I found most interesting regarding California was how the state gained control over the legal system. In 1851 California passed the Civil Practices Act. The Civil Practices Act basically established a state recognized judicial system over miners, one that recognized each camp’s system of laws. Justices were required to admit as evidence “the customs, usages, or regulations established or enforced at the bar or diggings embracing such claims, and such customs, usages, and regulations, when not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this States, shall govern the decision of the action.” Effectively the state of California claimed jurisdiction over the camps but ruled based on each camp’s system of laws so long as they didn’t conflict with California’s laws or constitution.

Afterward the federal government got involved in the legal process. In 1865 the United States Supreme Court, in Sparrow v. Strong, ruled that local rules were sanctioned by the federal government. Then in 1866 the federal government passed legislation recognizing an individuals ability to claim public lands for mining through improvement and occupancy (homesteading).

Legislation is only effective if it has the support of popular opinion and is enforceable. If popular opinion opposes the legislation people will ignore it and if the legislation is unenforceable it’s meaningless by default. Considering the strongly independent nature of frontiersmen why would they have accepted either government meddling in their affairs? Simple, neither government was really meddling in the miners’ affairs. Both governments passeds legislation that basically codified each camp’s system of laws. Nothing really changed for the miners.

This is a common way for states to create precedence to obtain further control at a later time. A state will often begin by codifying a currently established custom or private agreement. Such actions are seldom met with protest by the public because nothing is changing, the state is simply saying, “Hey, we recognize the agreements you guys have come up with.” What’s dangerous is that these recognitions set a precedence, they are a legal beachhead. Once one of these legal beachheads is established it’s easy for a state to enact further restrictions by claiming the previous codification of already accepted customs as precedence. Logically the state says it has the authority to create more laws effecting a group of people because those people never objected to the state’s previous interference. What appeared to be a benign action is really a mechanism of establishing future controls.

When the state passes a law that enacts an already generally accepted custom people generally don’t protest. The few who do protest are met with criticism by those who see no problem with the newly enacted law. Supporters of the state will say, “What the big deal? This is how we’ve been doing things. Nothing is changing.” They’re not lying, nothing changes, initially. What they fails to see is what future implications such laws hold. It is important to fight any power grab the state makes, even if that power grab seems benign. Every action taken by the state sets a precedence that the state can later use to justify future grabs for power. Let what happened to the mining industry be a lesson to us all. What started off as mere codification of currently accepted mining camp customs has turned into complete and total state regulation over the mining industry.

Agorism and Scamming State Programs

A user on /r/Agorism posted a question asking whether scamming welfare was, according to agorist theory, acceptable. I thought this was an interesting question, one that could be expanded to include scamming any government program.

Let’s consider agorism for a moment. The foundation of agorism is brining an end to the state through counter-economics. States exist through expropriation in the forms of taxation, confiscation of property, fines, fees, etc. Agorists believe that the most effective way to stop the state’s reign is to keep it from expropriating resources. Without those resources a state cannot continue. Simply ending the state isn’t likely enough to prevent another state from growing out of the previous state’s ashes so there is another aspect I believe agorists need to address, educating people on the fact that the state isn’t necessary. Most people have spent their entire lives living under the state and have a hard time imagining how society could function without one. In order to prevent another state from filling the power vacuum left by the previous one agorists must show how society can function without one.

Scamming government programs, in my opinion, can fulfill one of the above goals but would likely be detrimental to the other. From a counter-economics standpoint scamming government programs is a good idea. Every dollar you’re able to collect from the state through welfare, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. programs is a dollar less in the hands of the state. Those who can avoid paying taxes and fines but collect money from various government programs will take more resources from the state than they will give. Furthermore if you’ve been forced to pay into this programs previously one cannot make a good argument against using those benefits (you paid for them after all).

What about the other goal? Scamming government programs, in my opinion, can be detrimental to demonstrating the unnecessary nature of the state. One of the most common criticisms of Ayn Rand by non-libertarians is the fact that she collected welfare. They argue that Rand was inconsistent because she relied on welfare while claiming welfare was immoral. Libertarians will point out that Rand was forced to pay into welfare so she was merely taking back what was rightfully hers but non-libertarians still see Rand’s actions as hypocritical. The same argument could easily be applied to agorists who scam government programs. Statists can point to such scams as proof that the scammer is dependent on the state and from there argue that the state is necessary. People tend to give consistent individuals more weight in debates. What could an agorist do to demonstrate the state is unneeded? Separate themselves from the state as much as possible. It’s difficult for a statist to argue the necessity of the state if you’re not using state provided goods and services. If an agorist with medical issues, instead of relying on state services like Medicare and Medicaid, relied on mutual aid from fellow agorists it would send a powerful message.

It’s not my place to rule on whether scamming government programs is the right or wrong thing for an agorist to do. I personally avoid scamming government programs because I believe the most powerful way to promote a philosophy is to live that philosophy. On the other hand I acknowledge the damage taking money from the state causes and thus believe scamming government programs is entirely acceptable. There are many paths to liberty and we much each choose the one we want to travel. Some will choose to fight the state by demonstrating it’s unnecessary. Others will choose to fight the state directly by actively taking resources from it. Neither camp is wrong.

Why Hobbes was Wrong About the Necessity of the State

When an anarchist brings up the idea of abolishing the state around a statist they are usually met with a very Hobbesian argument. They claim that without the state humans would become vicious beasts roaming the world with the purposes of raping, killing, and stealing. Such a claim is absurd by its very nature:

Now, setting aside the fact that anarchism does not imply an absence of law or defense, and setting aside the fact that Hobbes’ ideas about the state of nature are completely ridiculous, just consider how interesting their claim was in that particular situation. Five armed men sitting in a field dozens and dozens of miles from a police officer having a civil chat about anarchism without any one of us trying to rape, rob or kill any of the others is a rather remarkable thing if Thomas Hobbes is right about human nature. Equally interesting is the fact that none of us feared or even contemplated the possibility of being raped, robbed or killed by anyone out there in the wilds of the Colorado plains that day. Like Coloradoans of the 19th century, we met scores of armed men over the course of the day, none of which we personally knew, and yet it never even crossed any of our minds to be concerned for our chastity, our wealth or our lives.

If the state is the only thing keeping humanity from barbarism then humans should revert to barbarism when away from the state’s influence, right? This isn’t the case as noted by the millions of hunters that have managed to leave the state’s sphere of influence, with guns no less, and return home safely. Shouldn’t lumberjacks working far from civilization carve each other up with chainsaws? How can shipping vessels traverse the vast expanses of the ocean without the crews murdering or raping each other? Wouldn’t astronauts kill one another since they’re completely beyond the reach of the state?

The primary failure of the Hobbesian idea that humans are naturally barbarous is that it requires ignoring the fact humans developed societies in the first place. If humans were naturally uncooperative how did they cooperate enough to form societies? Humans predate states therefore people of the ancient world must have avoided murdering one another in the absence of states long enough to form tribes, villages, and eventually cities. This fact alone demonstrates the fallacious nature of Hobbes’s claim.

Foxes Guarding the Hen House

Statists often claim that the state is necessary to protect the people. I find it rather strange to argue the need to have murders, extortionists, and rapists employed to protect us from murders, extortionists, and rapists. The police are not men of good will who benevolently protect the people from evil. Instead the police are criminals themselves. They murder anybody who resists their tyranny, extort people by issuing fines for nonviolent actions, and even commit rape:

The FBI defines rape as “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object … without the consent of the victim.” By this definition, Vagnini raped multiple people while he was on the job. In one instance, he allegedly caused his victim to experience anal bleeding for days. In another, he added insult to injury by allegedly planting drugs on his victim.

Rather than serving and protecting, other officers chose to aid and abet. In one incident, Vagnini’s victim was held down by other officers while Vagnini raped him. Furthermore, the Milwaukee Police Department was aware of these incidents for “a couple of years.” They waited “until authorities recognized a pattern” before they did anything to hold him accountable. Translation: The police department was aware that Vagnini was committing rapes, but they waited to do anything about it until they had determined that he was a serial rapist.

This story is appalling, but sadly it is not unique. For example, in Utah police officers have been known to conduct “forced catheterization” searches, which consist of forcibly inserting a catheter into the victim’s urethra to perform drug tests. In 2004, Haley Hooper was held down by four officers while a catheter was inserted into her vagina. While this met the legal definition of object rape, her lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the officers were protected by “qualified immunity.” Officers involved in another forced catheterization were promoted rather than prosecuted.

State protection is a fallacy because it implies the state actually protects people. In reality the state claims a monopoly on violence and uses that claimed monopoly to do whatever it pleases. Those tasked with enforcing the state’s decrees are often given special privileges including the ability to break the very laws they’re supposedly upholding. While the state claims any form of penetration without consent is rape it often forcefully penetrates individuals under the guise of searches. By their very definition they are committing rape. How can we expect individuals to uphold the law when they are given permission to break the law?

Inconsistent Libertarians

Brace yourself, I’m about to go on a rant. If you don’t feel like reading a rant just scroll up to the next story.

I’m easily irritated by inconsistency, which is why I loath the /r/Libertarian subreddit. While the subreddit is a great source for libertarian news the contributing members are extremely inconsistent. Yesterday I posted about the story of Leah Plante. She is facing cage time because she is refusing to testify against her fellows in a grand jury. Most libertarians would find such a situation reprehensible as one has the right to remain silent. This story made it to /r/Libertarian and, in general, most comments were on the side of Leah. As expected a large number of libertarians were opposed to the idea of coerced testimonies and witch hunts against political dissidents. That was until somebody pointed out that Leah has been involved in the Occupy movement. Suddenly the general consensus of /r/Libertarian went from “This case is bullshit, you shouldn’t be coerced into testifying against somebody!” to “Fuck that bitch! Occupiers deserve everything they get!”

What the fuck? People only have rights so long as they’re not involved in political movements you detest? A person has the right to free speech or to remain silent unless they’re not a libertarian? That, ladies and gentlemen, is a hypocritical stance if there ever was one.

As a libertarian I’ve found myself defending some very unsavory characters. I find myself defending the right of racists, bigots, etc. to speak freely. I find myself defending the right of those who have committed fraud to keep and bear arms. I find myself defending lots of people who I vehemently disagree with because libertarianism is, at least I thought, supposed to be able equal rights for all. It shouldn’t matter if you’re black or white, man or woman, libertarian or communist. If you’re a human being you should enjoy the same freedoms as every other human being. These freedoms, at least according to most libertarian philosophies, include not being coerced into actions you have no desire to take.

This “us” vs. “them” tribalistic bullshit needs to end. I’m not a big fan of collectivism and spend quite a bit of time arguing against it but that doesn’t mean I will suddenly do a 180 degree turn on my beliefs when a collectivist is facing a bad situation. Remaining consistent is important when you’re trying to make a philosophical argument. If you’re preaching one thing but doing another people will soon ignore everything you say. Arguing that everybody should live free of coercion one moment and then claiming coercion is perfectly acceptable the next moment makes you a hypocrite and nobody listens to hypocrites.

That’s my two cents, spend it however you want.

Agorism Helping Those in Need

Agorism, as I see it, is a movement with two purposes. First there is the obvious purpose of bringing an end to the violent state by witholding resources, such as tax money, from it. The second purpose is to help your fellow individual. Many goods and services that are necessary for survival are priced far higher than the poor can afford. Often the high prices are due to the increased overhead caused by regulatory compliance, intellectual property laws, and taxes. How long do you think a pharmaceutical company could rake in hundreds of dollars of profit for a single bottle of pills if the state didn’t maintain a monopoly for that company? Without the granted patents on the pill or the regulations that prevent newcomers from entering the market the price of those pills would quickly fall as other producers entered the market and started selling the pills for far less.

Practicing agorism, and therefore loosening the state’s grip and helping your fellow individuals, can be done in many different ways. One can sell their goods and services “under the table” in order to avoid paying taxes, which serves the dual purpose of keeping money from the state and bringing down the overall costs incurred by the producer (and therefore, in turn, the overall costs incurred by the customer). Another way to practice agorism is to exploit currently existing purchasing systems to offer goods and services to others at a lower price. For example, an entrepreneur or entrepreneurs with enough capital to make a bulk purchase of a good could negotiate a lower price per unit than those purchasing low quantities of that good. Once the entrepreneur or entrepreneurs had the goods in hand they could resell them at a cost still lower than would normally be incurred when purchasing low quantities. A second example would be exploiting insurance policies to acquire more goods than were needed and reselling the surplus, which is what some people are doing in order to help diabetics who can’t normally afford testing strips:

Although some estimates peg the manufacturing cost at about a dime per strip, it’s not unusual for a single strip to retail for $1 or more. And it’s not unusual for diabetics dependent on insulin to have to test three to 10 times a day. The cost quickly adds up.

“It’s out of reach of most people,” said Lemoyne Bloom, who advertised on craigslist to buy unused test strips in South Florida with the goal of reselling them at bargain-basement prices — but with enough of a profit margin to still make money.

[…]

One shade away from this black market is the largely legal practice of buying unused strips from diabetics or their middlemen and then reselling them, usually over the Internet. The so-called gray market circumvents full retail prices charged by pharmaceutical companies.

Advocates of such resales say the only victim is Big Pharma, which has priced its products so high that diabetics no longer can afford them. The marketplace is doing what big pharmaceutical companies won’t: providing test strips at a low enough cost that diabetics have a shot at regular testing.

“Some people just give us their strips and we don’t resell those, we donate them,” Bloom said. “That’s why we’re here, to help people.”

[…]

Who sells their test strips to these middlemen? “A lot of people have insurance and get strips they don’t need,” Bloom said.

Even though the state now mandates every American either purchase health insurance or face fines many people can’t afford health insurance. Those who can’t afford health insurance often cannot afford basic medical supplies either. This presents a real problem for those with medical conditions requiring periodic intervention such as diabetes. Normally these individuals would be left with no real option other than forgoing needed medical care but agorism gives them an alternative. Industrious entrepreneurs have found an exploit in the state manipulated health insurances system that grants them access to cheap testing strips. Using this exploit both the entrepreneurs and those in need of testing strips benefit while the state and its cronies suffer (even if their suffering is minor one can be bled to death by thousands of paper cuts).

Agorism is about mutual cooperation and that’s exactly what’s happening in the “gray” market for diabetes testing strips.