Category: Liberty

The Labor Movement

Today is Labor Day, the day we supposedly recognize the efforts of the labor movement for the current working conditions we now enjoy. What is lacking, in my opinion, in the discussion about the influence of the labor movement on today’s working environment is why the labor movement occurred at all. Ironically the labor movement was a result of centralization. I say it’s ironic because the labor movement is often tied heavily to collectivism, which is one of the most centralist philosophies out there.

The labor movement can be summarized as workers using various tactics in an attempt to coerce better working conditions out of their employers. Strikes, protests, and outright sabotage of employer facilities were used by employees to cause enough headaches for their employer to convince him or her to grant more compensation to the workers. Why were such coercive tactics chosen? Many inside the labor movement claim such tactics were necessary because the employees had no other option. Lacking the necessary capital to start a competing business the employees were, what the left often call, wage slaves. This claim isn’t false, but the labor movement ended up blaming the wrong people for their predicament.

Employers received a brunt of the blame while the labor movement attempted to use their actual enemy, the state, to achieve their desired ends. A major failure of the labor movement was incorrectly identifying the party responsible for the anticompetitive environment of the day. Why were workers cast into a life of dependency? The answer lies in the state’s centralization in the form of monopoly privileges to those in its favor. Benjamin Tucker identified four state monopolies: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly.

The money monopoly requires individuals to acquire enough state currency to, at minimum, pay any taxes, fines, and fees issued to them by the state. Through legal tender laws the state is able to coerce individuals into using the state’s money. This greatly restricts options such as subsistence farming or trading goods other than state issued money. It is no coincidence that the first receivers of issued money are the banks and the banks tend to lend that money primarily to currently established employers. This ensures that individuals interested in acquiring state issued currency must get it from an employer. Effectively one becomes dependent on an employer for their very survival because failing to pay taxes, fines, and fees to the state in its issued money can result in dire consequences.

The land monopoly is, perhaps, one of the more consequential to workers. As is sits the state has a claimed monopoly on land and anyone wanting to obtain land must either purchase it from a current holder or the state. Even virgin soil claimed by no man cannot to put to use without the state’s permission. This creates a barrier to entry for anybody wanting to construct a building or extract resources. Whereas workers could have the option of claiming unowned land and extracting resources for sale, that option has been removed by the state. In order to enter a business one must have enough extra capital to purchase land from the state and comply with all of its regulations concerning the use of that land (zoning laws, for example, restrict the uses land can be put towards).

Then there is the tariff monopoly. By implementing artificial price increases on imported goods the state ensures two things: prices for affected goods remain artificially high and anybody wanting to involve themselves in the business of trade, which requires less capital than producing, are at a disadvantage. Another option is removed from workers seeking to make their own way instead of relying on wages received from their employer.

Finally we have the patent monopoly. The monopoly on ideas is perhaps second to the land monopoly when it comes to detrimentally affecting laborers. In the absence of patent monopolies an employee unsatisfied with his or her current working conditions could take their knowledge received from working their current job and use it to compete with their employer. Who better to compete with an automobiles producer than individuals who have been building automobiles? The threat of employees leaving to found competing businesses is a powerful motivator for employers. If the compensation offered to employees isn’t sufficient in their eyes they can depart to start a competing business, leaving the employer without trained employees and facing competition from trained competitors.

Through the state’s interfere in the free market the employers hold great advantage over employees. Entering the market is difficult so employees are left at the mercy of employers. Unions and politicians both exploit this fact to their favors. While the unions propagandize employees into believing their only option to get by in the world is to join together in dues paying unions the politicians propagandize employees into supporting their party during the next election cycle. Individuals running the unions are able to collect money from member dues for, effectively, schmoozing politicians. Meanwhile the politicians collect money from campaign contributions and free labor from campaign volunteers. Both the unions and the politicians work together to ensure the status quo that keeps them both employed is maintained.

Today refrain of thanking unions, the labor movement, and supposedly labor friendly politicians for the working conditions you now enjoy. Instead condemn the state from putting you at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with your employer for better working conditions. It is unlikely that the labor movement would have even been necessary if it wasn’t for the state’s claimed monopolies.

Reclaiming Your Freedom

It’s always nice to see more people come to the understanding that the political means will never win us freedom. Instead we must reclaim our freedom by making the state irrelevant:

The only perceivable way I see to live free in an unfree world is to opt out. Civil disobedience and counter-economics not only are ways to make the world freer, but also allow one to be free in a world that otherwise isn’t. This strategy is known as Agorism.
Agorism is basically the idea of reducing your government footprint – to engage in trade that isn’t regulated or monitored by the government, to avoid funding the government as much as possible, etc. There’s a saying that goes “good people disobey bad laws”.

Agorism is fundamentally based on the premise that there is no legitimacy whatsoever to bad laws – laws that violate natural rights. A government’s unjust power lies solely in the acknowledging of it. By ignoring an illegitimate authority, you do not empower it. If enough people chose not to see authority from it, it becomes nothing more than a gang or mafia. And if enough people resist the thuggery perpetrated by this gang of thieves writ large? It will exist no more.

When you use the political means to advance liberty you are really asking the state to exploit you less. Everything the state has was obtained through exploitation and it is therefore against the state’s interest to exploit you less. It’s hard to imagine just how vast the state is. Every congressman’s, state inspector’s, state regulator’s, law enforcement officer’s, judge’s, attorney general’s, public prosecutor’s, capitol security guard’s, capitol janitor’s, state intern’s, etc. are paid with the money taken from you. Considering this do you honestly think the state is going to exploit you less? Do you think politicians are going to forsake their salary so you can live freer?

The only option available to us is to remove ourselves from the state as much as possible. Every dime we keep from the state is ten cents less available to pay state employees. Every transaction we make without involving the state is an entirely voluntary interaction between individuals. The more voluntary society becomes the more people will realize how unnecessary the state is. We must demonstrate how unnecessary the state is before public opinion will swing away from a positive view of the state. Doing that cannot be done using the political means since the political means validates the state in the eyes of the people.

Owing Society

A common claim among collectivists is that we owe society. The absurdity of this claim can be shown by simply asking one question: what is society? In specific terms society is a collection of individuals, but the collectivists like to anthropomorphize society. Instead of seeing society as merely a collection of individuals they see society as a separate life. When they say you owe society they imply that society is a single thing that is so obvious that it needn’t be defined. Unfortunately their claim falls apart as soon as you attempt to define it.

Let’s consider what society is. According to collectivists you derive value from everybody else in society, so we know that societies include more than one individual. This is where things get iffy. I derive value from a great many people. My computer was build by other people, my truck was built by other people, my bicycle was built by other people, etc. If I extrapolate further I have to acknowledge that my computer is the result of thousands of years of human innovation. It’s a machine that does calculations and math was heavily influenced by the Middle East (in fact we still use Arabic numerals today), it is built using electronic technologies that was greatly improved by the Japanese, it is built using rare-earth elements that come from China, and it uses an Intel process that could have been made in one of several fabrication plants (we’ll assume the United States facility for this example). If society is defined by the value I’ve received from other individuals then I must include the United States, the Middle East, China, and Japan in my society.

What we owe society depends on who you talk to. Some will claim we owe society schools, others will claim we owe roads, others will claim we owe healthcare, and some will claim we owe all of the above. Their mechanism for providing these things to society is taxation. A portion of my wealth is effectively taken to provide society with what I owe. If this is the case my payment to society is rather disturbing.

My tax dollars are used to bomb people in the Middle East, imprison people in the United States, and antagonize China. Money owed by previous generations was used to drop atomic weaponry on Japan. None of my tax money goes to build hospitals in the Middle Easy, roads in China, or schools in Japan. Effectively my tax dollars are primarily used to reign destruction down upon those who have provided value me. The only people I’ve benefitted from that gain any positive benefit from what I owe society are those residing in the United States and to countries that receive foreign aid from the United States.

I’m left having to ask many questions. Is society not composed of all the individuals I derive value from? Is the Middle East not part of my society? If it is why am I paying to bomb them? Do I owe them death? Is society defined by lines on a map? Perhaps my society is only the United States, perhaps it is only Minnesota, perhaps it is only Minneapolis. This is why the idea of us owing society is absurd, society is an undefined factor. We derive benefit from people all over the globe so society can’t be considered anything less than the entire world. If society is the entire world and I owe them anything positive then I should not pay taxes because much of that tax money goes to killing other people. If society is defined as only the United States then we it can’t be claimed that I owe society because I derive benefit from it as I derive benefit from people outside the United States as well. Basically, society is such a nebulous term that to claim I owe it anything is entirely meaningless.

Why Are You Begging Politicians for Freedom

Election season is fast approaching. As I type this people are currently gathered in Tampa, Florida to witness the crowning of the next Republican Party presidential candidate. Next week people will gather in Charlotte, North Carolina to witness the reaffirmation of Obama’s crowning at the Democratic Party presidential candidate. Americans all across the country will be demanding everybody vote for whichever presidential candidate they believe is the Chosen One.

If you listen to the political pundits and those involved in the political process this election will be the most important election of our lifetimes (even though it won’t be). Those backing the Republican Party will tell you about all the freedoms that will be taken from you if Obama wins the election. They will tell you that Obama, free of worry for another election (although during the next election they’ll tell you Obama plans to declare martial law an suspend elections), will now move forward with taking your guns and his socialist agenda. Meanwhile those backing the Democratic Party will tell you about all the freedoms that will be taken from you if Romney wins the election. They will warn you about the Republican Party’s war on women and how rights will be stripped form the American people in the name of God. People refusing to align with either major political party but still wanting to be involved in the political process will tell you to support whatever third-party they back because the two major parties are shit (which is true).

Here’s my question, why are you begging the state for your rights? You are born free, you don’t need permission to be free.

Some people reading this post may be confused about what I’m saying. They may be wondering why I’m saying those involved in the political process are begging for rights. My statement does a question: is the political process a form of begging? I’m here to tell you it is.

Let us first consider what the political process entails. In the United States we elect individuals to represent us at our local, state, and federal governments. The idea is that you send the people who best represent your values to fight for your political agenda. If you want to end the wars you try to elect a representative that is anti-war. If you want less gun control you try to elect a representative that is an advocate of gun rights. If you want to legalize abortions you try to elect a representative that is an advocate of women’s right to choose. What do all of these political issues have in common? If you accept decisions made through the political process all of the mentioned issues are areas where you believe the state has authority.

Let’s consider the topic of abortion for a moment. Proponents of legalizing abortion will generally gravitate to the Democratic Party while opponents of legalizing abortion will generally gravitate towards the Republican Party. Proponents will claim that having the option of legal abortions is a right whereas opponents will claim that abortions are an initiation of force against a fetus. Both sides are begging the state to make a decision regarding abortion. Does the state have a right to make a decision regarding abortion? If you accept the state’s decision, no matter what that decision is, you are answering in the affirmative. Proponents that get enraged when the state decides to prohibit abortions and react by campaigning for different representatives are saying they accept the fact that the state has authority over abortion, they disagree with the state’s decision, and they beg the state to change its mind. Why beg? Why not ignore the state? If the state rules abortions to be illegal and you believe they should be legal why not help those wanting abortions to get abortions? Why not get doctors on board who will perform abortions in secret? Why not help those wanting abortions to fly to a country where abortions are legal? Why accept the state’s decision when you can spit in its face and tell it to sod off?

Agorism is a fancy term for living free. I’m an agorist because I don’t recognize the state’s authority over my life. Begging for permission to live free is no longer in my deck the cards. Are you involved in the political process? If so, why? Do you accept the state’s decisions? If not, why give your time and money to the state through the political process? Why not put all that time and money into things you enjoy? Why not live free?

The Commonality of Statism

On the surface it appears that there is a vast divide between the Republicans (“right”) and the Democrats (“left”). If you listen to the rhetoric of either side you would believe the Republicans believe in free markets, sanctity of marriage, sanctity of life, and gun rights while the Democrats believe in regulating greedy capitalists, equal rights for homosexuals, women’s right to choose, and prohibiting access to dangerous weapons. Republicans believe they are entirely different from the Democrats and the Democrats believe they are entirely different from the Republicans. The truth, as explained by Jeffery Tucker, is that both sides are exactly the same:

We can and will argue interminably about how government ought to be used. Should government prevent gay people from contracting unions or stop private companies from discriminating against people who chose gay unions? Either way, the state is being brought in to tell people what they can and can’t do. In this sense, the left and the right have more in common than either side cares to admit: Both have a plan for how the state can better manage the social order.

[…]

So come November, we will drag ourselves to the voting booth and look at the names and try to remember what these various people promise to do for us and to us if we ratify their right to rule. Having done so, we are told that we’ve made our choice and now we must live with it.

But maybe it is not really a choice at all. Maybe it is time to let go of our dependency and reject the entire master-slave relationship that is the whole basis of the system itself. Fifty Shades of Government has been the best-seller for hundreds of years. It’s time that the governed write an entirely new book.

We shouldn’t be arguing how to use government to manage our lives, we should be arguing why government is used to manage our lives. According to the Republicans they want to legalize gun ownership while the Democrats claim they want to prohibit dangerous individuals from obtaining weapons. What both sides are actually saying is that they own us and whether or not we’re allowed to own firearms is entirely up to them. It doesn’t matter if you vote for Romney or Obama, both candidates believe they own you and therefore have the right to decide what you can and can’t do.

The majority of Americans have become ensnared in the state’s trap. They have been given state sanctioned confines in which to debate and never attempt to venture into territory outside of that. Political choices are illusionary. Whether you ask the state to legalize or prohibit something isn’t a choice, you’re asking the state to control individuals either way. If you ask the state to legalize something you are saying that the state has a rightful authority over that thing, which necessarily implies that the state may later make that thing illegal. If you ask the state to prohibit something you are again saying the state has a rightful authority over that thing, which necessarily implies you approve of the state’s use of violence against those who partake in that prohibited thing.

It is time we stop debating about how the government should use authority and argue against the government having authority.

The Market for Prisons

One of my friends posted this story about a federal investigation into the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Facility:

Officials in Lauderdale County, Mississippi, have operated “a school-to-prison pipeline” that violates the constitutional rights of juveniles by incarcerating them for alleged school disciplinary infractions, some as minor as defiance, the U.S. Department of Justice said Friday.

My friend blamed the conditions on the free market, namely for profit prisons. I had to contest this fact because for profit prisons are only able to enjoy profits because of state interference in the market. My take on the issue is to rely on a free market instead of allowing the state to run the justice system. As I expected he disagreed and stated disbelief in a free market being able to provide prisons. While I agree with is assessment that the free market would likely be a poor provider of prisons the reason I see for it is different. He believes prisons couldn’t be supplied by a free market due to the sheer expense of building cages, hiring guards to watch the cages, feeding the caged individuals, etc. whereas I believe prisons wouldn’t be supplied by a free market because there isn’t a demand for them.

The idea that imprisonment is a form of justice baffles me. Most people want to be compensated when they’re wronged. If somebody’s car is damaged in an accident they want their car replaced and any legal and medical expenses covered. When their television is stolen they want it replaced. I haven’t met a person yet who, after being victimized, wanted to pay more money to put their aggressor in a cage and pay for that aggressor’s food, water, and medical expenses. That’s what the prison system does, it makes victims into victims again as a portion of their wealth is stolen to pay for the construction, maintenance, and operation of prisons. What’s worse is that victims often of uncompensated for their losses. Is that what people really want? To be forced to pay when they’re victimized? History would say otherwise.

History is peppered with successful stateless societies. Two of the more famous instances of such societies are medieval Ireland and Iceland between the years 1000 and 1300. Medieval Irish law is noted for being created and executed privately [PDF]. While there were kings of sorts in Ireland during that period they held no power to create or execute law. Instead individuals were charged with creating and executing law and this is likely why the legal system in Ireland revolved around compensation instead of imprisonment. Iceland’s period of statelessness is also notable for the compensatory nature of their laws. Like Ireland, Iceland had no central coercive authority dictating law and enacting punishment, instead such matters were left to individuals living on the island. The legal system revolved around godi who were representatives. A godi held no actual power as association was voluntary instead of forced within arbitrary borders. Any individual could chose any godi to represent them and thus more successful godi were ones who best delivered justice in the form of compensation for is constituents’ losses.

In the absence of state coercion dictating laws and punishment societies have tended towards compensatory models. Compared to caging individuals in prisons getting compensation is relatively cheap and we know that markets tend towards efficiency. Therefore a compensatory model has the advantages of getting compensation for victims and is relatively inexpensive. If it wasn’t for the state dictating that aggressors and violators of state decrees be caged we would likely not have any market for prisons and thus people are correct when they say a free market would be a poor provider of prisons. Markets provide for demands, if there is no demand then there is no market.

The Pen Guides the Sword

Why has socialism become so prevalent in the world? If you ascribe to Marx you probably believe it’s because socialism is inevitable, it’s the next stage of human evolution. If you ascribe to material written by people of intelligence you likely believe there is another reason afoot. Part of the reason is the fact libertarians are rather poor at explaining their positions. The socialists know how to use language to their advantage and language is the weapon of choice in any ideological battle:

A wag in my high school said “Words are the tools of the English language.”

It was supposed to be a parody of deep-sounding but vacuous pronouncements. But the joke turns out to be on him: since words *are* the tools of language, they are the tools of thought. That means you must resist unto death using the terminology of your enemy. The side that controls language controls thought.

Anti-capitalists are onto this fact. Pro-capitalists need to catch up–especially since the mainstream media are dominated by anti-capitalists, who insinuate their distorted terms into what would otherwise seem to be open debate.

As libertarians we have a major task at hand. Not only do we have to explain our views but we must also reverse a century of collectivist dogma. We must use our pens to direct the swords away from individualism. This doesn’t mean screaming “Taxation is theft!” This means explaining why taxation is theft. We must also explain why collectivism is incorrect, which requires knowing the enemy as well as we know ourselves.

Again I urge my readers to study up on libertarian philosophy and socialist philosophy. Read works by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin. Without understanding the philosophies of collectivism you can’t hope to relate to collectivists and a majority of people in the world currently subscribe to collectivist ideals because that’s what they’ve been taught almost exclusively.

No single swordsman can hope to stand up to an army of swordsmen. Learn to use the pen and with it you can guide the army of swordsmen.

The Art of War: Know Your Enemy, Know Yourself

Sun Tzu said “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also know defeat. If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will sucumb to every battle.” While he was talking specifically about war much of his advice translates to other aspects of life, especially debates.

Being able to debate is important if you want to advocate for something. During most debates there are three factions: those who agree with you, those who disagree with you, and those who haven’t taken sides. Some say that debating is pointless because you’ll never change your opponent’s mind. The assumption being made by such a statement is that your goal is to change your opponent’s mind, it’s not in most cases, it’s to convince those who haven’t taken sides to take your side. In your quest to convince those who haven’t taken sides to take your side you need to know the details about what you’re advocating and the details about what your opposition is advocating.

Today’s lesson is simple: in a debate know your shit and know your opponent’s shit.

As a fan of examples I’m going to use an example to portray today’s lesson. In our example we’ll have a hypothetical debate between a libertarian named Murray and a communist named Karl. Let’s consider the first part of the Art of War excerpt, “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Murray, being an intelligent individual, has thoroughly read both libertarian and communist literature. He actually knows how Karl came to his conclusions, understands Karl’s theories, and can quote from any number of Karl’s fellow communists. Murray also knows his own work like the back of his hand. Why is this important? Why did Murray waste his time researching communism if he’s debating libertarianism? Because one cannot hope to win a debate unless he actually knows what his opponent is doing.

During this hypothetical debate we’ll say Karl states, “Human history can be characterized by exploitation. The capitalist class exploits the laborer class. In order for the laborer to obtain the necessities of life he must become a wage slave to a capitalist. The capitalist, interested only in profit, exploits the laborer and gives only a fraction of the value provided by the laborer in wages. Unable to survive without wages received from a capitalist the laborer is reduced to a mere servant.”

How could Murray respond to this? He could just call the entire statement malarkey and leave it at that but little would be accomplished from such a feat. Those who listened to the debate would see Karl as an intelligent individual, logically explaining his philosophy, and Murray as an inarticulate moron who doesn’t offer and explanation as to why Karl is wrong. Thankfully Murray has read Karl’s works and has found the failures of his statements. With this knowledge in hand Murray can counter by explaining, “You are correct in so far as human history can be characterized by exploitation. However you are incorrect on who is performing the exploitation. We must look at the root cause of the issue, why are other options unavailable to the laborer? Why can’t many of the laborers pool their resources and setup a competing factory on an unused plot of land? It’s not because the capitalist is preventing it, it’s because the ruling class, the state, is preventing it. The state, claiming authority over all, maintains a monopoly on the ownership of land and its use. Laborers cannot setup a competing factory because the state will use force to stop them from using the land and will make matters worse by hitting them with countless fees for inspections and fines for violating its regulations. These costs are nothing to an established business, which has the available capital to pay the fees and fines without going broke. The laborers, who are trying to establish themselves, do not have such access capital available to them. It isn’t the capitalist that is exploiting the laborers, it is the state that is protecting the capitalist from competition from the laborers.”

By using that explanation Murray is able to do two things: counter Karl’s statement and setup an argument against Karl’s idea to improve the current situation. Karl wants to establish an all powerful state to rule over all of society and ensure no capitalists are ever again able to exist. Murray, by showing the state to be the true exploiter, has set himself up to counter Karl’s solution. If you know your enemy you can anticipate their movements and develop an appropriate plan to deal with them.

Let’s consider the next piece of the except, “If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also know defeat.” In a debate not knowing your enemy can cost you greatly, even if you know your own philosophy. This is where many libertarians falter, they know libertarian philosophy in and out but they have no understanding of communist philosophy. It’s time to revisit our debate between Murry and Karl. This time we’re going to assume that Murray has no functional knowledge of communism.

Karl says, “The capitalist class has amassed all possible resources and prevents the laborer class from acquiring them. In order to grow their wealth the capitalists keep the laborers in a state of poverty, preventing them from becoming an economic competitor.”

Unfortunately for Murray he has no understanding of the issue Karl is brining up. All Murray says is, “You just want to take the entrepreneurs’ wealth so that you don’t have to work.” Such a statement fails to address the point Karl was making, that is the poor are prevented from rising because resources are kept from them. It isn’t a false claim, those who are in poverty are often unable to rise economically because resources are not available to them. What Karl is incorrect about is the perpetrator, it’s not the capitalist but the state. It’s the state’s monopoly over resource ownership and implementation of rules and regulations that prevent new low cost businesses from developing. For a small fee anybody can gain possession of a food cart and could begin selling hamburgers, hotdogs, french fries, etc. to hungry passersby. Yet many municipalities have laws against such businesses or require the purchase of an expensive permit before selling food.

Now we’ll take a look at the last except, “If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will sucumb to every battle.” If you don’t know your stuff and don’t know your opponent’s stuff you’re truly sunk. For this final section we’re going to assume Murray has no understanding of libertarian philosophy or communist philosophy.

Karls says, “The current environmental destruction is a demonstration of a capitalist’s greed. They are willing to put the health of everybody else at risk merely to obtain more wealth. No regard is given to the community.”

Murray, having only heard a few talking points about libertarianism, is unable to counter with any detail and merely replies, “Free markets would solve that.” How would free markets solve that? Murray isn’t sure and thus unable to go into detail. To anybody observing the debate Murray looks like a putz while Karl seems like a very intelligent individual, after all he gave an explanation for the rampant environmental destruction going on in the world. Those who try to argue in favor of libertarianism but don’t understand libertarianism are the most dangerous, they practically hand victory to the communists.

If you want to enter into debates you must not only know your material but also your opponent’s material. This holds true whether the argument is gun rights versus gun control, libertarianism versus communism, free markets versus controlled markets, or any other topic. Going into a debate knowing only your material will likely grant you some victories while going into a debate knowing neither your material or your opponent’s material will ensure your defeat.