Category: Liberty

When discussing anarchy it’s inevitable that somebody will make some snide comment about protecting the poor. In the eye’s of a statist the state protects the poor but in a stateless society the poor would go without protection because they would be unable to afford protection services. This argument is absurd though because it relies on the false premise that the state actually protects the poor, it doesn’t:

Doris Spates was a baby when her father died inexplicably in 1955. She has watched four siblings die of cancer, and she survived cervical cancer.

After learning that the Army conducted secret chemical testing in her impoverished St. Louis neighborhood at the height of the Cold War, she wonders if her own government is to blame.

In the mid-1950s, and again a decade later, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, at schools and from the backs of station wagons to send a potentially dangerous compound into the already-hazy air in predominantly black areas of St. Louis.

Local officials were told at the time that the government was testing a smoke screen that could shield St. Louis from aerial observation in case the Russians attacked.

But in 1994, the government said the tests were part of a biological weapons program and St. Louis was chosen because it bore some resemblance to Russian cities that the U.S. might attack. The material being sprayed was zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder.

Instead of protecting the poor the state inflicts harm on them. Many times throughout history the poor have been used a guinea pigs by states for many gruesome experiment. Let’s not forget the Tuskegee syphilis experiment:

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama; 400 who had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 200 without the disease. For participating in the study, the men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

We should also remember when the United States government experimented on poor college students without their consent:

Project MKUltra, or MK-Ultra, was a covert, illegal[1] human research program into behavioral modification run by the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Office of Scientific Intelligence. The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and finally halted in 1973.[2] The program used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy.[3][4][5][6] MKUltra involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate people’s individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.[7]

These are just a tiny handful of examples. To claim that the state protects the poor is absurd. In fact the poor are the favored prey of the state. If you want to protect the poor you should detest the state.

When I discuss anarchism it’s inevitable that somebody will claim the lack of a state will inevitable lead to roving gangs of bandits preying on the weak. What people making such an argument have failed to address is how such a system is functionally different than what we live under today. Under today’s system we have a giant roving gang called the state preying on everybody who lives within its claimed territory. As Robert Higgs explained, anarchists aren’t the ones who have perpetuated history’s great atrocities:

Anarchists did not try to Carry Out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not Carry Out a Great Leap Forward that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

The systematic slaughter of so many people is very difficult without a state. To claim that states are the only thing standing between civilization and barbarism demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding history. States have perpetrated great genocides throughout the world whereas stateless societies such as Medieval Iceland, Medieval Ireland [PDF], the American Old West [PDF], and Neutral Moresnet are notable for their relative peace.

The state isn’t what lies between civilization and barbarism, the state is barbarism.

I came across an excellent piece that explains why caring about the presidential election is actually a sign of apathy:

One of the most socially destructive traits is apathy. Without paying attention and being involved, one can not only fail to stop, but even perpetuate, the worst social ills imaginable.

That’s why I advocate staying as uninvested in the current presidential election as possible.

[…]

The political campaigns — which exist for the purpose of trying to “win” — give participants the feeling they are doing something. Meanwhile, this feeling of “doing something” fails to translate at all into anything remotely relevant to the causes they hold dear. After it’s all over, the activist is exhausted and unable to take on any action that has real effects on the community.

Of course, one must be first convinced that the two candidates are, in fact, “roughly indiscernible” and irrelevant to the causes one holds dear. But this should be the opinion of many who still plan on voting for either President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. The former has alienated serious liberals with an atrocious civil liberties record, expansion of American military involvement and harsh prosecution of the drug war, among other issues. The latter has alienated serious conservatives with his endless politically convenient conversions, most notably in literally crafting the basis of the much-derided Affordable Care Act.

Even if there were serious differences between the two candidates, it’s very hard to overstate the ineffectiveness of voting. Given the huge number of people your vote is up against, the odds show it is literally more likely for you to die in a car accident on the way to the polling place than to cast a decisive vote in the presidential election. This is even more of an issue in a state like Oklahoma that currently has zero chance of even remotely resembling a “swing state.”

Voting is the easy way out. It’s a mechanism for individuals to feel like they’ve done something to enact change without actually having to do anything. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant, they’re more similar than different. On top of that, statistically speaking, your vote doesn’t count. The outcome of the election will be the same whether you go out and vote or stay home.

Change isn’t easy and casting a vote at the polling place on November 6^th will not accomplish anything. The only way things will change is if public opinion changes and that can only happen when people realize how entirely corrupt and evil the state is. Unfortunately people will never come to this realization so long as they believe they have a say in how the state operates through the voting process.

I can’t wait until the election is over with and we know which of the two running douche bags will be fucking us for the next four years. I’m getting sick of hearing people trying to tell me who I have to vote for. Romney’s supporters are, perhaps, slightly more annoying than Obama’s supporters. Those demanding I cast a vote for Romney are claiming that he’s our only hope of being at least a little free for the next four years. How does choosing a master, any master, help me be free? You want to know what I think about voting? I will assume you do since you’re reading this post. Voting, in my opinion, can best be summed up as the following:

Just because you get to choose who rules over you doesn’t mean you’re free. Freedom means the ability to make your own decisions in life. When you get to choose what you eat, what you drink, what you buy, who you sleep with, who you marry, whether or not you want to get married, etc. you are making free decisions. When you beg an uninvolved third party for permission to eat, drink, have sex, or get married you’re making yourself a slave. You’re saying that you recognize that uninvolved third party’s authority over your life and accept his or her decision in matters affecting your life. This is why I’m confused by those voting for Obama based gay marriage stance. Why are you begging the president for permission to marry somebody of the same sex?

The president is nothing more than a master who rules over your life using coercive force. If you smoke a verboten substance the president’s minions will come to your home, kick in your door, and either kidnap or murder you. If you grow wheat in spite of the state’s rationing of wheat production the president’s minions will come to your home, kick in your door, and either kidnap or murder you. Do you really want to recognize such a man as an authority figure?

Why do you care who the president is? Why do you recognize the president as an authority figure? Why do you allow yourself to voluntarily be a slave? I don’t care if Romney is designated as my master or Obama because I don’t recognize masters.

There’s no need to get worked up over any political race so long as you refuse to submit to the state. You don’t need to ruin a friendship because your friend disagree with you about who a better master is. Don’t buy into the fallacy that voting make you free. Acting free makes you free, voting for masters merely means you get to decide who you will be a slave to.

The Republican and Democratic parties have chosen then presidential candidates and both of them are war mongers. I’m not shy when it comes to pointing this out to my politically oriented friends. Since they’re unable to counter my accusations against their candidates they have began using another tactic, they’re trying to lay the blame for the war mongering nature of the United States on me. OK, not specifically me, they’re blaming everybody who they perceive as whining instead of actually doing something. In their eyes whenever I complain about the war mongers running for president I’m simply whining. Their responses are usually variations on telling me to stop whining and run for office. Such responses always make me smile.

People seem to have a habit of getting so caught up in their own methodologies that they fail to see that other methodologies exist. Furthermore they becomes to wrapped up in their own methodologies that they fail to see when those methodologies prove to be ineffective. Combining these two factors seems to be a recipe for lashing out at anybody who don’t approach a problem the same way as they do.

My friends that support the Democratic Party are now cheering on four more years of Obama. This response is interesting to note because it was only four years ago when they wanted to nominate Obama because he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, end Bush’s wars, work to legalize marijuana, and push for legislation that would lost the cost of healthcare for Americans. After four years of Obama as president Guantanamo Bay is still open, we are now embroiled in more wars than we were during Bush’s reign, marijuana dispensaries that are legal in the states they reside are being raided by the federal executive branch , and the cost of healthcare is going to go nowhere but up now that everybody is forced to buy health insurance or face state inflicted consequences. To claim that the political means failed to achieve any of my Democratic friends’ goals would be an understatement. Yet when I challenge them about this they resort to calling me a whiner because I’m not trying to change things.

What my friends aren’t considering is the fact that I am working to change things, I’m merely taking advantage of the knowledge I’ve gained from observing their failures. As I just explained my friends have failed to achieve their desired ends using the political means. Electing Obama didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, legalize marijuana, or bring the cost of healthcare down. An impartial outside observer would point out that reelecting Obama isn’t going to accomplish any of those ends either. When something fails to work trying the exact same thing again isn’t rational. Their failure is valuable though because it demonstrates what not to do. Now that we know what doesn’t work we can try something else.

How am I working to close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, legalized marijuana, and reduce the price of health care? By removing the entity that has enabled all of the headaches, the state. The state opened Guantanamo Bay, involved itself in the wars, prohibited marijuana, and raised healthcare prices criminalized free competition that market. Even if the political means could be utilized to correct all of these issues, logic would dictate, it could be used again later to recreate all of these issues. Why would I waste my time doing something that a proven failure and doesn’t guarantee long-term results?

Ending the state is no easy task. Attempts have been made in the past with varying results. The Revolutionary War was effective in ending the British state that reigned over the American colonies so violent insurrection has a demonstrated history of toppling states. Yet the long-term results were less than stellar. Shortly after the establishment of the new American state force was already being used to coerce individuals. Today, under the same state that has its roots in the Revolutionary War, we once again have high taxes and an overbearing state. Needless to say violent revolution is not the methodology to achieve long-term liberty so we must learn from past mistakes and try something different.

I advocate agorism. Agorism is a method specifically ended at ending the state through counter-economics and preventing a new state from rising later down the road. If it’s effective it will accomplish all of the goals my Democratic friends desired when Obama was running for his first term. Can I say it will work for certain? No, and if it fails that failure should be learned from and something new tried. Does practicing agorism constitute mere whining? No, it has a greater chance to achieve a better society than the political means that has been demonstrably impotent. Is agorism the only possible tactic? Absolutely not. Perhaps working inside a third party will accomplish great things. Historically it hasn’t accomplished much but it’s still a far better tactic than working inside of the current major political parties.

If you work outside the political system, or even if you working inside of the political system through third parties, you will suffer accusations of wasting time. These accusations should be ignored because they are coming from myopic individuals who are entirely incapable of seeing strategies outside of those that they’ve been using with little or no success. People working outside of the political system or inside through third parties are doing far more work in the name of changing the United States than those working inside the Democratic or Republican parties.

When your Democratic or Republican friends accuse you of not doing anything to fix the problems you raise know that you’re actually doing far more than they are. Instead of trying to beat a screw into a board with a hammer you’re trying a different tool. Is it the right tool? Maybe not, but continuing to try the hammer has a long history of failing and any untried tool will give you better odds. Sure, those who invested thousands of dollars in new hammers will say you’re wasting your money but they’re the ones who keep doing the same thing over and over again without notable results.

Yesterday I briefly discussed the primary issue with the labor movement, namely is the movement’s blaming of employers instead of the state. While the employers often treated their employees poorly the workers were put at a disadvantage by the state’s monopolization of money, land, tariffs, and ideas. Today I want to briefly discuss the real labor movement, that is what workers can do to improve their working conditions. Anybody who has read my blog for any length of time can likely guess where I’m going to go with this:

Yes, I’m going to discuss how agorism can be used by workers to improve the conditions they work under. As I discussed yesterday, the state has put workers at a disadvantage. In order to keep themselves free of the state’s cages workers must pay taxes, fines, and other fees issued by the state in the state’s currency. The state, through its monopoly on money, ensure that employers are the first receivers of state issued currency. As the state maintains a monopoly on land and grants monopolies on ideas workers are unable to build a competing business to their current employer. Finally the state also prevents workers from utilizing foreign production of goods that compete with their current employer due to tariffs. When combined, these monopolies ensure workers are left with few options, at least if they want to remain legal.

What if workers didn’t care about remaining legal? In that case a whole work of possibilities would open up to them. Negotiating with an employer would become entirely unnecessary to those running their own businesses. Workers who were unsatisfied with the conditions under which they were working could start producing goods and services themselves and eliminate their dependency on an employer. In essence decentralization allows individuals to become more independent (I know, that’s a crazy idea but bear with me).

If you study economics for any length of time you may come across the philosophy of distributism. Distributism is an economic system based on Catholic teachings, namely the teaching of subsidiary. In Catholicism subsidiary is the idea that the smallest social unit that can perform a function should perform that function. As you can expect distributism advocates small businesses over large corporations. While I don’t agree with distributism (it also advocates a tax system to redistribute wealth, which I oppose on the grounds that such actions require a coercive state) the idea of many small businesses should appear to workers. Not only does it give more options to workers (if you don’t like your current employer you can apply with any number of different employers) but such a work environment necessarily requires the state to interfere minimally in economic matters, which allows workers to start their own businesses easier. Because of this distribusim has many ideas that should appeal to workers and agorism can make those ideas a reality.

Agorism, I believe, will lead to the creation of many small businesses as opposed to a handful of large businesses. This is because a large business would have a hard time avoiding the eye of the state whereas a small business can easily do so. The more customers served by a single business the more likely it is that one of those customers will either intentionally or unintentionally alert the state to its existence and that would likely be the business’s end. Due to this fact agorism encourages decentralization and encourages individuals to be their own bosses, effectively weaken employers’ power. Workers not wanting to start a business will still gain an advantage as there will be more employers for them to chose from and workers who want to become producers themselves can directly improve their working conditions instead of using coercive methods against an employer.

Agorism has the potential not only to destroy the state that has given employers an unfair advantage but it also the potential to improve the negotiating power of workers.