Category: Liberty

Nigel Farage on Greece

Nigel Farage is hands down one of my favorite government actors in Europe. He’s always quick to bring up the sham that is the European Union (EU) and comes up with some stellar one-liners. His speech on the recent happenings in Greece was great:

Being good blokes the people who uploaded the video to YouTube also provided a handy transcript. One of the biggest hypocrisies in the EU is the constant use of the word democracy while the governing body of the EU is composed of appointed officials. After listening to his speech it’s pretty easy to see why the people of Greece are pissed off:

Well Commissioner, you picked the right man. Puppet Papademos is in place and as Athens caught fire on Sunday night he rather took my breath away. He said, ‘Violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country.’

What democratic country?

He’s not even a democratically elected prime minister. He’s been appointed by you guys. Greece is not run through democracy now, it is run through a Troika. Three foreign officials that fly into Athens airport and tell the Greeks what they can and cannot do.

The violence and destruction that you saw on Sunday is being caused directly because people are having their democratic rights taken from them – What else can they do?

Greece has basically been turned into a dictatorship with the rulers being appointed by the governing body of the EU. Obviously the people of Greece, whom believed they had a say in the happenings of their government (a mistake many people make), are unhappy that their democratic process has been tossed out the window and replaced with a puppet government likened to something American would put in a country that was looking to turn communist.

And I must say, if I was a Greek citizen I would’ve been out there, joining those protests on Sunday. I’d be out there trying to bring down this monstrosity that has been put upon those people.

This is why I like Farage, he’s willing to say things most politicians would never conceive of.

And in his efforts, in the Puppet’s efforts to get the MPs to vote for the bailout package, he warned them, that if they didn’t do so there would be a dramatic decline in living standards.

Well, has he looked out the front door?

Has he seen the fact that 50 per cent of the young people are unemployed already. Has he seen the fact, that the economy, far from stalling has contracted for five years in a row, and is now accelerating on a downward death spiral – a contraction of 7 per cent per annum.

Greece is being driven into the ground, and I think, frankly, when it comes to chaos, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

These policies are driving Greece towards a revolution. They need to be set free. If they don’t get the Drachma back you will be responsible for something truly, truly horrible.”

I’ve mentioned the economic issues in Greece and how the state promised the people everything but delivered nothing, while still taking everything. Unemployment is rampant, taxes are high, and the only thing that appears to be on the horizon is even higher unemployment as public employees, who makes up 22% of the employed people of Greece, are let go.

The government of Greece has broken its promise the the people and the people are not happy about it. Honestly I would love to see the people of Greece walk into Athens, toss the current bums that call themselves government out on the street, and be an example to every other state in the world of who has the true power. The attitude many of the founding fathers of this country held regarding revolution were correct, it’s the right of the people to overthrow their government when they feel the government no longer serves a legitimate purpose. The government of Greece no longer serves a legitimate purpose and the people are well within their rights to overthrow the current tyrants.

Reductio ad Somalium and Roads

Whenever a libertarian argues with a statist either reductio ad Somalium or reductio ad roads comes up. For those who don’t know reductio ad Somalium is akin to the Internets general Godwin’s Law. That is to say when an argument between a libertarian and a statist goes one long enough the likelihood the statist will bring up Somalia approaches one. Reductio ad roads is the same thing except you merely replace the word Somalia with roads.

In the statist’s delusional world Somalia is the unavoidable result of too small or a lack of a state. On top of that statists also believe that it’s impossible for roads to be built or maintained without a state. Following such logic Somalia should be entirely devoid of roads, right? Think about it, Somalia apparently has no government and roads can only be built and maintained by states. Taking a look at Somalia on Google Maps showed me something unexpected… roads. Thinking that Google Maps must be inaccurate I checked Bing Maps, which also displays roads in Somalia. Thinking there must be some kind of corporate conspiracy I decided to check an independent project that claims to be compiling data about roads in Somalia, and surprisingly found the data they obtained wasn’t entirely empty!

What gives? Something fishy is going on. Either Somalia has a state or roads can be built and maintained without a state. Perhaps I’ve found a logical fallacy in statist thinking? I will have to research this more in depth and get back to you guys with my findings.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Malarkey Produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center

Last week I mentioned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) new war against those of us who dare call ourselves sovereign individuals. The fear mongering machine is in full motion now and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has a page up describing the “sovereign movement” ideology. As with other SPLC studies this one is full of lies and slander:

The strange subculture of the sovereign citizens movement, whose adherents hold truly bizarre, complex antigovernment beliefs, has been growing at a fast pace since the late 2000s. Sovereigns believe that they — not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials — get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, and they don’t think they should have to pay taxes.

Wow the first paragraph is already full of bullshit. While some sovereign individuals man believe they get to decide what rules to obey most of us believe in natural law as advocated by the likes of Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard. Natural laws are ones derived by nature and reason. For example natural law opposes the act of initiating violence because, through basic reasoning, it can be demonstrated that nobody enjoyes violence being initiated against them. Nobody likes getting their ass kicked or stuff stolen so it makes sense to have law against such acts. What SPLC describes would be a Libertine, who may consider themselves sovereign individuals but are the exception instead of the rule.

Sovereigns are clogging up the courts with indecipherable filings and when cornered, many of them lash out in rage, frustration and, in the most extreme cases, acts of deadly violence, usually directed against government officials.

By clogging up the courts with indecipherable filins I’m guessing the SPLC means the fact that many sovereign individuals take every single ticket, fine, and other fund raising efforts by the state to court. The reason for this is simple, if we eventually clog the courts with asinine and irrelevant cases the state will be face with a decision; either they focus on the real crimes where people are actually harmed or they stand by as it takes ten years before any case can be heard. Since most people want violent individuals dealt with over those who simply parked improperly the state will be forced into the former and thus our court systems have some chance of being a source of actual justice again.

The claim that many sovereign individuals will lash out in acts of violence is entirely false. Once again violent individuals in the “movement,” as with violent individuals in any movement, are the exception instead of the rule. SPLC did manage to find a single example to cite:

In May 2010, for example, a father-son team of sovereigns murdered two police officers with an assault rifle when they were pulled over on the interstate while traveling through West Memphis, Ark.

While the self-referenced link in the story brings up the fact that the police officers who were shot were performing drug-related arrests no mention of whether or not drugs were found in the killer’s van is ever mentioned. If there were illegal drugs in the van it’s not surprising to see the violent reaction. Of course this is also a single case. If I cherry pick my data I can make the sovereign individual movement look entirely devoid of any violent individuals, but I don’t like spreading false information so I’ll refrain from such an exercise.

The movement is rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, though most sovereigns, many of whom are African American, are unaware of their beliefs’ origins.

No it’s not. I’ll explain in a second:

In the early 1980s, the sovereign citizens movement mostly attracted white supremacists and anti-Semites, mainly because sovereign theories originated in groups that saw Jews as working behind the scenes to manipulate financial institutions and control the government. Most early sovereigns, and some of those who are still on the scene, believed that being white was a prerequisite to becoming a sovereign citizen.

The sovereign individual movement didn’t start in the 1980’s, it’s much older than that. I mentioned Lysander Spooner, an individualist anarchist from the 1800’s who is considered one of the major philosophers by many calling themselves sovereign individuals. He must have been a downright racist if the SPLC story is true, right? Nope, he was a strong abolitionist who wrote many essays on freeing American slaves:

TO THE NON-SLAVEHOLDERS OF THE SOUTH.

We present to you herewith “A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,” and solicit your aid to carry it into execution.

Your numbers, combined with those of the Slaves, will give you all power. You have but to use it, and the work is done.

The following self-evident principles of justice and hu­manity will serve a. guides to the measures proper to be adopted. These principles are –

1. That the Slaves have a natural right to their liberty.

2. That they have a natural right to compensation (so far as the property of the Slaveholders and their abettors can compensate them) for the wrongs they have suffered.

3. That so long as the governments, under which they live, refuse to give them liberty or compensation, they have the right to take it by stratagem or force.

4. That it is the duty of all, who can, to assist them in such an enterprise.

Some racist, huh? Henry David Thoreau was another philosopher of the sovereign individual ideology and, like Spooner, opposes slavery to such an extent that he wrote a speech titled Slavery in Massachusetts in which he explained his opposition to slavery.

The group that SPLC describes are anti-Semites, not sovereign individuals (while the two groups aren’t mutually exclusive they are also not mutual inclusive, I’m proof that one can be a sovereign individual and not a racist, bigot, etc.).

They argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed citizenship to African Americans and everyone else born on U.S. soil, also made black Americans permanently subject to federal and state governments, unlike themselves.

I would love to know where they pulled that charge from. Of course being this is a SPLC article they fail to cite any sources for the more dastardly accusations.

The contemporary sovereign belief system is based on a decades-old conspiracy theory. At some point in history, sovereigns believe, the American government set up by the founding fathers — with a legal system the sovereigns refer to as “common law” — was secretly replaced by a new government system based on admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce.

What a pile of bullshit. I’ve already explained that sovereign individuals generally suscribe to natural law, not common law. If you click on the self-referencing link to common law you’re met with more bullshit produced by the SPLC explaining the roots of common law being biblical in nature and springing forth in the 1980’s. Common law actually refers to English Common Law, which the legal system of the United States is based on (it is where we derive our tradition of trials by jury and jury nullification powers). While there are many aspects of common law the most important to note is that rulings are generally based on previous case precedence and jury decisions. A critical part of common law is also the fact that juries can’t be punished for their decision and thus hold the power of jury nullification.

The United States legal system has been moving away from common law for ages. Evidence exists of this every time a judge lies to a jury by telling them that they must uphold the letter of the law as opposed to their belief of a law being just or not. Another example of common law being dead in this country is the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the government the authority to detain an American citizen without trail. There isn’t some kind of grand conspiracy being enacted behind closed doors, the killing of common law is being done in the open for all to see. The article goes on for a bit spewing more bullshit about sovereign individuals believing in some kind of grand conspiracy to discredit the “movement.”

Though this all sounds bizarre, the next layer of the argument becomes even more implausible. Since 1933, the U.S. dollar has been backed not by gold, but by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government (in fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended private ownership of gold in large amounts in 1933; governments could still sell gold for dollars to the U.S. Treasury for a fixed amount after that, until that practice was ended by President Richard Nixon in 1971). According to sovereign “researchers,” this means that the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans.

Where the fuck do they come up with this shit? Seriously I want to know but they don’t provide any citations. The argument for the gold standard has nothing to do with a belief that the American government has put the citizenry up as collateral, it has everything to do with basic economics. Of course the SPLC article goes on for some time trying to make their case without presenting one single shred of evidence.

It is impossible to know how many sovereigns there are in the U.S. today, in part because there is no central leadership and no organized group that members can join.

You don’t become a sovereign individual because you join a group, you are one by nature. While there are no groups that grant sovereign individuality there are philosophies that subscribe to the idea that individuals are sovereign. Many libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, and basically any other form of individualist anarchism believes in the individual being the supreme ruler of themselves. I’ve been using the term “movement” in quotes when referring to the sovereign “movement” for a reason: there is no sovereign “movement.” The idea of an individual being sovereign is part of individualist anarchist philosophies (and philosophies I’m sure), not a philosophy unto itself.

Instead, there are a variety of local leaders with individualized views on sovereign citizen ideology and techniques.

As I’ve explained previously, the term “sovereign citizen” is a contradiction of terms:

Sovereign citizen is a contradiction of terms. A sovereign is a supreme ruler while a citizen is a subject of a state. You can not be a supreme ruler and a subject at the same time. On the other hand a sovereign individual is a supreme ruler of an individual, him or herself. If you’re going to make us appear as a threat please get the terminology right at the very least.

If the FBI can’t get the terminology right I guess I shouldn’t expect the SPLC to figure it out:

In the mid-1990s, the IRS estimated that there were approximately 250,000 tax protesters in the U.S., people who believe that the government has no right to tax income.

Tax protests have been done for many reasons throughout history. Previously mentioned Henry David Thoreau refused to pay taxes to protest slavery and the Mexican-American War. He refused to monetarily contribute to an institution (the state) that enforced slavery and initiated wars. With that said the federal government has no right to tax income as taxation is a form of theft. Of course tax protesters often care little about that fact (and often belief the government has the right to extract taxes) and usually are protesting foreign wars, drug prohibition, or any other number of issues they have with the government that causes them to not submit to taxation.

Not all of them were full-blown sovereign ideologues. Since the late 1990s, an abundance of evidence suggests that the sovereign citizen movement’s growth has been explosive, although there have been no more recent IRS estimates because Congress in 1998 prohibited the agency from tracking or labeling those who file frivolous arguments in lieu of paying their taxes.

Emphasis mine. I just want to point out that none of that abundant evidence is presented by the SPLC.

The weapon of choice for sovereign citizens is paper.

*GASP* NOT PAPER!

A simple traffic violation or pet-licensing case can end up provoking dozens of court filings containing hundreds of pages of pseudo-legal nonsense.

As I explained this tactic is a method of forcing the courts to ignore victimless crimes and focus on cases involving violence.

For example, a sovereign was involved in 2010 in a protracted legal battle over having to pay a dog-licensing fee. She filed 10 sovereign documents in court over a two-month period and then declared victory when the harried prosecutor decided to drop the case.

Since having the prosecutor drop the case prevents the punishment of an individual for a nonviolent crime it is victory.

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, most new recruits to the sovereign citizens movement are people who have found themselves in a desperate situation, often due to the economy or foreclosures, and are searching for a quick fix. Others are intrigued by the notions of easy money and living a lawless life, free from unpleasant consequences.

Or those of us who research the philosophy of our founding fathers and the ideas of person liberty in general. Anybody who reads the works of our founding fathers will realize that they believed the people, not the government, were supreme. In fact they believed this so strongly that they codified the right to keep and bear arms as a last measure for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Many self-identified sovereigns today are black and apparently completely unaware of the racist origins of their ideology.

It’s probably more to do with the fact that sovereign individuals were the ones opposing slavery back when it was still sanctioned by the state.

When a sovereign feels particularly desperate, angry, battle-weary and cornered, his next government contact, no matter how minor, can be his final straw. The resulting rage can be lethal. In 1995 in Ohio, a sovereign named Michael Hill pulled a gun on an officer during a traffic stop. Hill was killed. In 1997, New Hampshire extremist Carl Drega shot dead two officers and two civilians, and wounded another three officers before being killed himself. In that same year in Idaho, when brothers Doug and Craig Broderick were pulled over for failing to signal, they killed one officer and wounded another before being killed themselves in a violent gun battle. In December 2003, members of the Bixby family, who lived outside of Abbeville, S.C., killed two law enforcement officers in a dispute over a small sliver of land next to their home. And in May 2010, Jerry and Joseph Kane, a father and son sovereign team, shot to death two West Memphis, Ark., police officers who had pulled them over in a routine traffic stop. Later that day, the Kanes were killed in a fierce shootout with police that wounded two other officers.

I find it funny how the SPLC only references itself, never outside sources, and that is when they reference anything at all. For example the claim about the 1995 case in Ohio goes entirely without citation, as does the supposed case in New Hampshire in 1997.

This article, like every other piece of bullshit produced by the SPLC, is entirely false and written simply to make an argument against individualists. The SPLC is nothing more than a shill of the state that writes articles in an attempt to demonize anybody who believes in individual liberty. Sadly some people actually believe the malarkey they produce, which is why I needed to take the time to write a rebuttal to their claims.

When the State Can’t Legally Steal Your Wealth They Simply Make New Taxes

I’m sure you’ve heard that Mark Zuckerberg is in a position to make an absolute fortune with Facebook’s upcoming IPO. What You probably haven’t heard is that the state is looking to enact a new tax because without it they can’t legally steal as much of Zuckerberg’s newfound wealth:

WHEN Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth. The $5 billion he will receive upon exercising those options will be treated as salary, and Mr. Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion, quite possibly making him the largest taxpayer in history. He is expected to sell enough stock to pay his tax.

But how much income tax will Mr. Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won’t immediately sell? He need not pay any. Instead, he can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax.

[…]

A drastic change is necessary to fix this fundamental flaw in our tax system and finally require people like Warren E. Buffett, Mr. Ellison and others to pay at least a little income tax on their unsold shares. The fix is called mark-to-market taxation.

For individuals and married couples who earn, say, more than $2.2 million in income, or own $5.7 million or more in publicly traded securities (representing the top 0.1 percent of families), the appreciation in their publicly traded stock and securities would be “marked to market” and taxed annually as if they had sold their positions at year’s end, regardless of whether the securities were actually sold. The tax could be imposed at long-term capital gains rates so tax rates would stay as they were.

We could call this tax the “Zuckerberg tax.” Under it, Mr. Zuckerberg would owe an additional $3.45 billion when Facebook went public (that’s 15 percent of the value of the roughly $23 billion of stock he owns). He could sell some shares to pay the tax (and would be left with over $20 billion of Facebook stock after tax), or borrow to pay the tax.

Under current tax laws Zuckerberg would actually be allowed to keep the fruits of his labor, something that sate never approves of. The state is like a far more vicious version of the mafia, if you make any money they want a cut and if you don’t give them that cut something bad is going to happen to you. Unlike the mafia, the state pretendes to abide by a series of laws and regulations but in truth these laws and rules are entirely under their control and therefore can be changed whenever they become inconvenient.

Like most state puppets the author of this opinion piece is trying to make the market-to-market tax appear to be a great idea by appealing to the reader’s jealousy. First the author states that Zuckerberg is in a position to make a great deal of money, the reader. The author then moves on to explain that, unlike the reader, Zuckerberg will be able to avoid a great deal of taxation when he obtains his new wealth. He finally closes by saying the new market-to-market tax will allow the state to gouge Zuckerberg without affect the reader. Therefore most people reading this article will likely walk away thinking the market-to-market tax is a great thing as it punishes people who are more successful than themselves.

What’s interesting is looking back at the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which gave the federal government the authority to collect income tax. Before passage of the amendment the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act established a 2% federal income tax but was shut down by the Supreme Court when they ruled such income tax as unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company. Such a ruling was a mere technicality for the state as they were able to simply make an amendment to the Constitution that allowed the collection of income tax by the federal government. Shortly after the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment the Revenue Act of 1913, which established the federal income tax, was passed.

The Revenue Act of 1913 passed with little objection by the population because less than one percent had to pay federal income tax. From there the state simply kept ratcheting up the income tax rate until a large majority of the population were paying. Like the market-to-market tax being proposed in the New York Times article, the Revenue Act of 1913 was able to pass by preying on people’s jealousy. Looking at the history of the federal income tax should also make people aware of the fact that any newly passed tax, such as the market-to-market tax, will eventually affect a vast majority of the population.

According to the author the market-to-market tax will have a positive effect:

The most profound effect of a mark-to-market tax would be to level the playing field between wage earners, on one hand, and founders and investors on the other. Superwealthy holders of publicly traded securities could no longer escape tax on their vast wealth.

The author’s conclusion is entirely wrong. A market-to-market tax will further encourage those who have a million dollar idea to flee to a friendlier country where they won’t be subjected to as much theft. In this age of global commerce why create something amazing in the United States when you can do it in Hong Kong and keep far more of the wealth you generate? Facebook it a website and like any website it can be setup anywhere in the world. Setting aside the fact that taxation is theft still makes the idea of a market-to-market tax a bad idea.

Yet agents of the state will feed it to the people by preying on their jealousy, meaning the tax will likely enjoy a great deal of support by the populace. Unfortunately for the populace, especially those of us who aren’t wealthy enough to be effected by this new market-to-market tax, we will eventually become targets of this new tax as well.

The Only Alternative to Capitalism is Force

Collectivists often claim that capitalism is a necessarily exploitive economic system. In their eyes they view capitalists, those who own the means of production, as exploiters who are not giving workers the full value of their labor and demand that the capitalists be overthrown and employees be granted equal ownership in the means of production. The goal of collectivists is the elimination of hierarchy, a goal that is mutually exclusive from eliminating force and coercion from society. Many collectivists never stop to consider that the only alternative to capitalism is the threat of a gun.

First let’s cover what capitalism really is. A good definition of capitalism is, “a state of affairs where two private parties are free to enter into a contract where one acts and the other remunerates.” In other words two individuals can come together and voluntarily agree to exchange goods or services with one another. Voluntary exchange necessarily requires one person being able to agree to work for another person for an agreed upon rate. Two other major components of capitalism that collectivists oppose is the private ownership of the means of production and wealth disparity. In this essay I simply plan to explain how the only alternative to capitalism is force.

Since I like examples I’m going to use one. Let’s assume we have to individuals; Murray the capitalist and Fred the worker. Murray recently spent a large portion of his wealth building a factory to produce widgets. As it currently stands the factory is unstaffed and thus unable to make any widgets so Murray needs to find somebody to run the machinery. Enter Fred, a man who is exceptionally knowledgable in the construction of widgets and currently seeking employment. Upon seeing an ad in the local newspaper Fred seeks out Murray and asks him for a job, a request Murray happily accepts. Fred and Murray make an agreement; Fred will run the widget producing machines for Murray at an hourly rate of $20.00. In exchange for $20.00 every hour Murray is receiving finished widgets that he can sell for $25.00 an hour. For the sake of easy computation we’ll assume it takes Fred one hour to produce each widget leaving Murray with $5.00 of profit for each widget sold.

The key to the agreement between Fred and Murray is the fact it was made voluntarily. Nobody put a gun to Fred’s head and said he will work for Murray nor did anybody put a gun to Murray’s head and say he will hire Fred. As this is a voluntary agreement either party can choose to terminate the agreement whenever he desires. Were a competing widget producer to offer Fred $22.00 an hour Murray would either need to increase Fred’s wage or risk losing him as an employee. Likewise if Fred becomes less productive for some reason and starts taking two hours to produce a single widget Murray has the right to fire him and find a more competent employee. What I have just described is the concept of voluntary association.

Continuing with our example we will say Murray has been extremely successful and the widget business is booming. In fact Murray is selling widgets faster than he can make them so he now believes it is time to expand his operation. Hoping to increase his output Murray hires two new employees; Alan and Karl. Both employees are paid $20.00 and hour and can each produce an additional widget for the factory every hour. Now Murray has three newly assembled widgets produced every hour that can be sold for $25.00 each. Every hour nets Murray $75.00 of which $60.00 is paid to his employees leaving him with $15.00 of profit.

Unfortunately Murray didn’t realize that Karl was a communist agitator. Karl believes that he is being exploited because the total value of his labor comes to $25.00 and hour but he only receives $20.00 an hour. Instead of terminating the voluntary agreement he made with Murray and seeking more gainful employment elsewhere Karl has decided to seize the factory from Murray.

In order to eliminate capitalism the means of production, Murray’s factory in our example, must be seized by the workers, Fred, Alan, and Karl in our example. Karl talks to Fred and Alan and tells them that he feels they are all being exploited. Fred doesn’t agree and refuses to be part of Karl’s scheme but Alan likes the idea of possibly making more money so joins Karl in his crusade. One Monday morning Karl and Alan show up to the factory before Murray and Fred to setup their picket line. Fred arrives only to be blocked from entering the factory by Alan and Karl. Finally Murray shows up and is also prevented from entering his own factory. Karl exclaims, “We have seized this factory in the name of the workers!” Murray being a sensible individuals shakes his head and says, “Karl you’re fired, please leave my property. Alan you can either go with Karl or continue working for me.”

At this point Karl and Alan have a decision to make; either they can leave the factory and let Murray find new employees or they can use physical violence to keep Murray and Fred from entering the factory. As this is a good communist takeover of the factory Karl and Alan decide to go with the latter and continue to prevent Murray and Fred from entering the factory. After some time Murray finally gets sick of the situation and tries to go around Karl and Alan’s picket line only to be physically assaulted.

From here and until the end of time Karl and Alan must use physical force to prevent Murray and Fred from once again entering the factory. Seizing the means of production from the capitalists necessarily requires the use of violence.

What other option would Karl and Alan have though? Neither one of them have the money to build their own factory so are they stuck being “exploited” by capitalists like Murray? Not at all. Instead of using physical violence to seize Murray’s factory Karl and Alan could have left, pools their money together, and build a co-op where every employee received an equal share of the profits. Under capitalism voluntary association is recognized meaning those wanting to work at a business where each employee gets an equal share of the profits is free to do so.

Now that we know how seizing the means of production from capitalists requires the use of force let’s look at another aspect of capitalism, hierarchy. Hierarchy in this case deals exclusively with wealth; some people have more wealth than others. In our example Murray, the capitalist, has more wealth than Fred, Alan, and Karl. His additional wealth is what allowed Murray to build the factory in the first place. Instead of building a factory let’s assume Murray decided to sit on his vast wealth instead.

Fred, Alan, and Karl are without work because Murray never build his factory and nobody else is currently hiring so they’re all nervous about where they will get money to feed their families. Fred and Alan were both looking at some unused land to homestead and start small farms but Karl had another idea. Karl isn’t one for doing much manual labor preferring to write long manifestos about the evils of wealth disparity. People like Murray have more money then Karl and that really pisses him off. Not getting anywhere with writing his manifestos Karl decides to take his message to the streets where he meets Fred and Alan.

Karl exclaims that it is unfair that Murray has so much wealthier while Fred, Alan, and himself go without. “All should be equal!” Karl screams. He then raises his fist into the air and says, “Let us rise up and take what is rightfully ours!” Fred, recognizing the situation for what it is, decides to have none of it and heads off to start his farm. Alan, not liking the idea of farming, decides to join Karl’s crusade.

Karl and Alan arrive at Murray’s house and inform him that all his wealth will be equally distributed amongst the three of them. Murray simply laughs at the two and slams the door in their face. At this point Karl and Alan are left with two decisions; leave and find another means of obtaining wealth or break down Murray’s door and seize his property. Once again eliminating capitalism requires the use of physical force.

In order to achieve the communist utopia described by the likes of Engels and Marx all currently held property must be seized and redistributed. Since everybody who holds property is unlikely to voluntarily surrender it the use of force is necessary. Not only is force necessary to tear down capitalism but more force is necessary to maintain it.

Capitalism is free trade amongst individuals. In other words if Murray were to exchange $50.00 for Fred’s recliner the two have entered into a free market exchange. A voluntary exchange only happens if both parties feel as though they came out better in the end. In other words Fred is trading his recliner because he values the $50.00 more while Murray values the recliner more. This phenomenon arrises from the fact value is entirely subjective. What happens if Fred continues trading his goods for money? Eventually Fred is going to have a great deal of money that can be used to buy other things. Preventing Fred from obtaining wealth will require price fixing.

If Fred purchased his recliner for $25.00 some mechanism will need to be put into place to prevent him from selling the recliner for more than $25.00 down the road. How do we prevent Murray from offering Fred $50.00 for the recliner? Once again the only option is physical force. To ensure a continuing society free of hierarchy some deal of policing will be necessary. First prices will need to be set for goods and then those prices will need to be enforced. This is where collectivist entirely falls apart.

A system of fixed prices and enforcement was established in the Soviet Union. Since goods were incorrectly valued (a problem that can never be overcome by central planning) shortages of some goods develop. In the Soviet Union food was often in short supply so black markets developed where people could trade goods they had for food they needed. The appearance of black markets occurs whenever a prohibition against a desired good is established. Prohibitions can come in many forms including government bans, artificial increase in the price of a good through central planning, and making a good appear undesirable by artificially increasing its cost through taxation.

Some people are surprised to learn that black markets for cigarettes exist in the United States. These black markets don’t exist solely because underage kids who want cigarettes aren’t legally allowed to purchase them, they also exist because the high tax on tobacco products artificially increases the cost of cigarettes. To avoid paying this artificially high prices many people stock up on cheaper cigarettes when traveling abroad or purchase cigarettes at a reduced cost from those who travel abroad. The only way to stop this black market is to monitor every package and piece of luggage entering the country for illegal cigarettes (something the United States tries to do but is unsuccessful at most of the time). When contraband is discovered it must be seized, an action that requires the use of force or the threat thereof.

Free trade, the crux of capitalism, can only be prevented by the use of force. When I say free trade I don’t merely mean the voluntary exchange of goods but also preventing the trade of a “lesser” value good for a “greater” value good (as value is subjective a “lesser” value and a “greater” value is actually impossible to quantify). Therefore it is not merely enough to stop Murray from trading Fred for his recliner but some mechanism of fixing the price of the recliner for all time is needed as well. In other words if Fred paid $25.00 for his recliner Murray must be prevented from giving anything besides $25.00 for it.

The elimination of capitalism; that is the private ownership of the means of production, wealth inequality, and free trade; can only be accomplished by the use of force. In this way collectivism is a necessarily violence philosophy unless everybody in the collectivist society voluntarily agrees to the economic system being used to replace capitalism. Proponents of collectivism such as Engels and Marx realized this last fact, which is why they argued a socialist society must first be established to “educate” the people until they believed in communism. Truthfully the word “educate” meant the same as brainwash. Reeducation camps established by many socialist nations were so named because they were used to make those being held within understand the greatness of the communist ideal. That understanding was developed by using enough force that those being held in the camps eventually broke and went along with the communist ideal just to escape the horrible conditions of the camps (of course those running the camps knew this and thus never released most prisoners).

The Illegitimacy of Mob Rule

I disagree with a great deal of what the Occupy movements have been advocating but my biggest objective, by far, is their espousing of mob rule. Of course they don’t call it mob rule, nor does anybody else who supports the idea, instead preferring the friendlier term democracy. The problem is democracy by nature is nothing more than mob rule:

Democracy, of the unlimited kind lauded today,[3] is a form of socialism, in the sense that it arrogates ultimate power over all decisions to the government. Implicit in the notion of people’s present love affair with mob rule is the assumption that government, through the collective “will of the people,” should have the prerogatives of ownership of all resources in society, should it choose to exercise these. The democrat brooks no limitation on the legitimate powers of government and hence gives total ownership over all of society to this institution.

While people often call the United States a democracy it is not. Unlike a democracy the founding fathers of the United States attempted to limite government power over the people through the Constitution (it was a valiant effort old chaps, I’m sorry it didn’t succeed). In a democracy every decision can be chosen by the majority in society whereas the United States, as envisioned by its founders, specifically prevents certain decisions from being made. The Bill of Rights is an example of this attempt. Unfortunately the founding fathers left the Constitution open for changes via amendments meaning nothing in the Bill of Rights was really set in stone but at least there was a high barrier of entry to start mucking about. Either way you get the idea, the United States wasn’t meant to be a democracy where any decision could be made by the mob.

Yet those who advocate democracy are saying that they desire the majority be given rule over the minority. Sometimes advocates of democracy try to conceal that fact by using fancy terms such as consensus. With consensus, advocates claim, no decision is final until everybody involved has agreed to it. In all honestly many people eventually break down and agree to things simply because they’re sick of debating and wish to move on with their night (a phenomenon I’ve witnessed numerous times at OccupyMN). Oftentimes people will simple say, “Fuck it, I’ll vote for it to get things moving along but I’ll try to get it repealed later.” These same people don’t stop to think about the fact that repealing it later will be almost impossible (a fact demonstrated by our government that never seems to repeal any law).

My biggest gripe with democracy though is the fact that rights become conditional:

It is true even when a democratic government chooses policies that are relatively liberal and purportedly support the ownership of private property. For such property ownership is regarded as conditional. Supporters of the system of democracy assert their right to forcibly interfere in the lives of others whenever they have sufficient support from the mob to do so, or are otherwise capable of capturing political power.

Do you own a business? Good for you! Unfortunately the majority of people have decided that a park would be a far better use of the land your business is occupying so we’ve voted to demolish your livelihood. Too bad, so sad, get the fuck out. Are you enjoying your protection against government goons breaking into your home and searching through your belongings without so much as a warrant? We’re sorry to inform you that the majority have agreed that persons making more than $1 million a year are no longer protected from warrantless searches. Why? Because we need to ensure that you’re paying your “fair share” to society!

Uncertainty is bad for everybody. Who is going to start a business if they are uncertain of what regulations will be coming down the road? Why invest the money to build a home if you’re not sure the mob will vote to seize it at a later date? Nobody is going to strive for success if that success can later be taken away by those who did not enjoy similar success in their lives.

Many people will often claim that democracy can work so long as the right people get elected. Who are the right people? Ask 10 people and you’ll get 10 different recommendations:

If you are inclined to believe that democracy will function justly when “the right people” are elected, then bear in mind that each political party is elected precisely because its candidates are regarded as the best people available by the majority at the time.

Right now Barack Obama is the president because of two mob decisions. First a mob of Democrat Party members agreed that Obama was the candidate they wanted to run for president. A second mob later decided that Obama was the person they wanted to be president of the country. The same goes for Bush. There is no way to elect the right people into office because everybody believes different people are the right ones. Whereas I believe Ron Paul is the only decent candidate for president others want Romney or Obama (but I repeat myself).

If I’m against democracy that must means I’m an advocate of a dictatorship right? Wrong, that’s a false dichotomy:

Those who support democracy tend to conflate the issue of the method of selection of rulers with the preliminary question of whether political power is legitimate in the first place. Hence, it needs to be clearly understood that objection to democratic rule does not mean that one prefers dictatorship — it means than one does not consent to have others initiate force against them, regardless of the method of selection of those with the power to do this.

I am my own sovereign. If somebody believes they can become a sovereign over me they can kindly go fuck themselves. Each person is born a free individual and has power over their own life. Just because a gang of assholes get together and call themselves a government doesn’t mean I have to recognize their authority.

What alternative exists though? How can one man defend himself against a mob? If the mob has decided on a decision isn’t your only option to comply? The answer to those questions is to be thankful that you exist today and not centuries past.

Since the idea of dragging capitalists out to the town square and running them all through guillotines is a popular idea among collectivists I’ll provide my standard rebuttal to it. Even if you get 100 people to vote and agree that I should be executed for advocating capitalism I don’t have to agree. Sure there may be 100 of you but me and my .308 can make one hell of a protest against your little mob. In the end you may win, I may die, but your victory won’t come without cost, I won’t go alone.

With the way things are going in the world I’m glad I live in this century. Before the invention of repeating firearms there was little a single individual could do against a mob. Today one man with a semi-automatic firearm can refuse to comply with a mob and have a halfway decent chance of surviving. Imagine a democratically elected vengeance seeking brigade lynch mob decide you were to hang. What could you do? Quite a bit if you have a quality firearm by your side and the skill and ammunition to use it. In the end the firearm is the free man’s defense against democracy.

Some will claim that my attitude goes against the principles this country was founded on. Those people are wrong. The founding fathers of this country did establish a government but always believed the individual to be sovereign. A quote by Noah Webster brings the founding father’s ideals to light:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Webster strongly believe the people not only had a right to keep and bear arms but that this right was essential to ensure the government wasn’t allowed to encroach on individual sovereignty. Let us not forget Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote:

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Not only did Jefferson believe in the right of the people to defend themselves against their government but he also advocating periodic rebellions to ensure the government was reminded that the people reign supreme. While I’m not a fan of violent rebellion in any regard I am an advocate of self-defense and that self-defense includes people being assailed by their government.

These are just two quotes in a virtual library of materials penned by the founding fathers regarding the sovereignty of individuals. We have to remember that the founding fathers had just previously overthrown a tyrannical government and were still riding high on the idea of individual liberty. They didn’t believe in democracy, where the mob reigns supreme, but in the sovereignty of individuals. In their minds it was the right of every individual to defend him or herself against infractions on individual sovereignty. By declaring my distain for democracy I’m not opposing the ideals this country was founded up but actually promoting them.

Those who cow to the majority are some of the most despicable people of all. They think that so long as the majority believe something to be just that it is, that so long as decisions are made democratically they are good. These same people often complain about the state of the world today but only suggest that the people who are responsible for this dystopian state, the government, be given more power so that “the people” may reign supreme. By “the people” they really mean everybody who agrees with themselves wholeheartedly.

Do not fall into the fallacy of democracy, stand up and assert your sovereignty. Let no other person or persons rule over you. Just because a large group of people made a decision doesn’t mean it’s right. Do not allow yourself to fall into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Statism and Stockholm Syndrome

The more I research statism and the people who subscribe to it the more I’m firmly convinced those people suffer from Stockholme Syndrome. For those who are unaware Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological phenomenon where hostages begin sympathizing, and at times ally with, their captors.

When you think about it we’re all captives of a state. If at any time we disobey the desires of whatever state we’re in we will find ourselves subjected to physical violence. For example in the United States those who go against the decree of the state and grow a verboten plant will find themselves the victims of kidnapping and will be held in a cage for however long the state deems appropriate. In other states, like Saudia Arabia, a woman can be stoned to death for cheating on her husband.

Stockholm Syndrome isn’t entirely understood but most researchers believe it is a kind of coping mechanism. According to some kidnapping was very common in pre-history and those who were kidnapped ended up allying themselves with their captors in order to adopt to the new tribe and survive. Taking this view into consideration it’s easy to see how somebody having their actions controlled by a state would develop sympathetic feelings towards his or her controller.

The phenomenon can best be witnesses in those who are extremely nationalistic. Those who feel the country they live in is somehow the best one in the world and are unwilling to recognize any of that country’s faults. Considering the fact that most people are citizens of their current country through the happenstance of birth it is impossible to believe these people were randomly born into the society that best matches their beliefs and needs. While most people will point to Americans as the most common example of this the truth is each country has a large number of nationalistic people (hell a great number of British people thinking being the subject of a queen is a sign of a great civilization).

Being a resident of the United States I feel best qualified to speak in regards to this country and thus will keep my examples American focused. When reading this please note that the general idea applies to all countries and that only the examples are American specific.

The United States people have a great deal of patriotism. Sadly this patriotism is often so rampent that many living here are unable to see the flaws in the country. Americans take pride in calling this country the land of the free. The sad truth is our country is no longer the land of the free as every year brings in new tidal waves of laws, regulations, and other rules that turn previously law abiding citizens into mere criminals. We have police officers stroming into the homes of innocent people in a crusade against drug use. You can’t even get on an airplane without being treated like a possible terrorist. So what has the response been? Very little for the most part.

Most American citizens justify many of these new “security” measures to themselves. When the PATRIOT Act was being rammed through Congress I remember brining up my opposition to the bill only to have fellow citizens state that we need it to protect ourselves from another 9/11. Even before the bill was passed people of this country were justifying the bill’s existence and convincing themselves that it was for the greater good. How many people do you know speak about the evils of illegal drugs? I can’t be the only person who has had a conversation with somebody who believed the war on drugs was a great thing and thought the idea of decriminalizing currently illegal drugs was insane. Once again these people have taken the government’s bullshit and convinced themselves that it was righteous. Every time we enter a new war there are hordes of people who will parrot the government’s excuse.

It gets worse, much worse. Not only do these people convince themselves that the government is telling the truth they viciously attack anybody who raises an opposing voice. If you speak out against warring with Iran you’re called crazy, insane, or even unAmerican. Saying you believe a person has the right to decide what they put into their body is often met with accusations of drug use. Talking about the ever more prevalent police state gets you labeled as paranoid or delusional. These people have convinced themselves so thoroughly that the government is good that they lash out viciously at any opinion that calls their beliefs into question.

One of my favorite examples involved the Department of Education. If you say you want to abolish the Department of Education people will instantly accuse you of hating making education available to children. The facts that the Department of Education was only established in 1979 and since 1979 education has only gone downhill is entirely irrelevant to these people. As far as they’re concerned the state must provide education because no alternative exists. They have allowed themselves to become obedient dogs of the state and have even begun developing such positive feelings towards the state that they begin defending every decision it makes.

These people have begun sympathizing with their captors to such an extent that they refuse to consider opposing viewpoints. The more I look into statism the more I’m convinced that it’s simply a sever form of Stockholm Syndrome. We’re all hostages of the state and it’s violence and the only way some are able to cope is to convince themselves that the state is good.

I Wish Statists Would Just Cut Straight to the Point

All I ask for is a little intellectual honesty from my philosophical opponents. I wish anti-gunners would just come out and say they want to ban all firearms and be done with the pussy footing around. While I’m making a list I also wish the other statists would just come out and say they want people who do the “wrong” thing murdered.

I came across this wonderful piece of statist propaganda :

Kathy Baylis, a professor of agricultural and consumer economics, studied the ban on junk-food advertising imposed in the Canadian province of Quebec from 1984 to 1992 and its effect on fast-food purchases.

By comparing English-speaking households, who were less likely to be affected by the ban, to French-speaking households, Baylis and co-author Tirtha Dhar, of the University of British Columbia, found evidence that the ban reduced fast-food expenditures by 13 percent per week in French-speaking households, leading to between 11 million and 22 million fewer fast-food meals eaten per year, or 2.2 billion to 4.4 billion fewer calories consumed by children.

Combine this statist propaganda with some actual statists and you have a recipe for advocating violence. We go from comments like this:

And that is why anyone who bases policies and ideologies around the premise that people are rational and independent is full of shit.

People can be, but most of the time they are not, because it is hard and takes conscious effort.

There are two views one should really have when it comes to government. The first view is the assumption that the above commenter is right and people are irrational being. In such a case the last thing you want to do is hand irrational being power over other irrational being because you’ll just double your irrationality. The section view is that people are, in general, rational and good beings. In such a case there is no need for government to rule over the already generally good and rational beings.

Seriously though I wish the above commenter would flat out state what he really things, people should be told what is the right course of action and be killed if they decide to take a different course. After all wouldn’t the world be a better place if we just killed everybody we disagree with? Think about it for a minute, you’d have a world of like-minded individuals being obedient to the state. Why if we just round up all the people who are wrong and shoot them we’ll have a perfect world!

That’s the ultimate end to a plan that revolves around stupid notions such as people needing to be managed by other people. Laws must be enforced with violence so passing laws that attempt to instill “proper” or “rational” must result in “improper” and “irrational” people being physically harmed until they either submit or die.

Let’s look at fast food for a minute. The general consensus of society is that fast food is bad for people. Therefore wouldn’t it make the most sense to round up everybody who eats fast food and put them in prison? That would solve the problem because the lack of customers would force fast food joints into bankruptcy. Obviously if consumers of fast food resist arrest we’ll have to kill them but really they’re only bring death upon themselves for if they simply submit to the man with the gun all will be fine (in 10 years when they finally get out of prison).

What I just typed sounds absurd to any rational being but that is ultimately what statist want. Statists really are the lowest of the low. When they advocate a new law what they’re really saying is, “I know what’s best for people.” Libertarianism doesn’t based its philosophy on the idea that people are rational being, it bases its ideas on the idea that initiated force and coercion are undesirable and therefore should be eliminated.

Somebody spending all of their money on lottery tickets isn’t being rational consider the chances of winning are somewhere near the chances of gravity reversing itself in the next fifteen minutes. Yet I do not wish people to force me into action by using violence so I must not force others into action using violence. While I don’t agree with the actions of somebody who spends all of their money on lottery tickets I have no right to force them into stopping.

Instead of claiming new laws need to be put into place to curb “irrational” behavior statists need to cut to the point and state that they believe they know what is best for society and also believe anybody who disagrees with them should be physically harmed or killed.

The Fifth Box

In regards to the insane number of tyrannical pieces of legislation that have been making their way through the United States legislature as of late Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Pirate Party, wrote and article titled Do We Really Have To Prepare For The Fourth Box. The article refers to the common four boxes of liberty meme as explained in the article:

Soap box: A box you stand on in the street trying to explain your views to the public. Figuratively, building public opinion for your case.

Ballot box: Public, free, democratic elections. If the laws don’t work, and the elected representatives don’t get it, replace them.

Jury box: If no public representatives get it, neither the elected nor those available to elect, the second to last line of defense is the judicial system, which can overturn laws that go against the most fundamental rights.

Ammo box: If the system has been so thoroughly corrupted that the entire establishment is acting as one, and it is not possible to change the laws to safeguard fundamental liberties, then only one option remains.

As you can guess by the title of Falkvinge’s post he is questioning whether or not it’s time to ready the ammo box. Truth be told I was never really a fan of the four boxes of liberty meme because it left out the fifth option, agorism. Agorism, for those who don’t wish to read the entire Wikipedia article, can basically be summed up as a system of counter-economics where the government is entirely cut out of the transactions. The idea is simple, you starve the best by cutting off its life

  • blood

    • of tax money.

    In a sense agorism deals with government displeasure in the same way people deal with business displeasure. When you are unsatisfied with a product or service you receive from a business you stop giving them money (unless the government is compelling you to give them money of course). One can take agorism to absolute extremes or only practice is in a few key areas of their life. Those who work only for cash that goes unreported, own no property, and buy everything via the free market (often incorrectly called the black market by racist economists) you will pay no income tax, no property tax, and no sales tax. Of course such drastic measures are not within the reach of many such as myself but we can still practice agorism in little bits and pieces. Every time you work for cash that goes unreported or buy something from a friend and refuse to pay the accompanying sales tax to the state you’re participating in the philosophy of agorism.

    Practices in large enough amounts agorism can theoretically destroy a state. Without money to feed the police and military governments find themselves without enforcers making all their laws benign. Even if the government controls a country’s money it matters not if all goods and services are paid for using an alternative currency agreed upon by those performing transactions.

    For argument let’s pretend a large majority of the United States populace started practicing agorism. Instead of trading for United States dollars the people started trading with each other using gold, silver, copper, and .22 LR ammunition (since everybody has a stockpile of the last item). Most people are listed as unemployed and therefore have no income to pay taxes on. Without income people have no source of dollars and therefore buy their goods and services on the free market and report nothing to pay sales tax on. Those who did own property abandoned it to avoid paying property taxes. Basically dollars would become useless as people stopped accepting them for trade (this is how the free market chooses money by the way). Police and military personell would start abandoning the state as their dollars become worthless for buying food and the government would find itself unable to buy new military gear since weapons manufacturers would stop accepting dollars as well.

    Obviously the above scenario is far fetched but I presented it simply to explain how agorism can theoretically bring down a state.

    I’m not a fan of the ammo box. It requires the violent overthrow of the government, an act that is likely to only breed more violence down the road. Even if the government is successfully overthrown you will be left with mountains of dead bodies and likely warlords fighting one another for control over various territories. Once in a great while an event like the American Revolution does happen and a more free society is established but such an event requires the right people and I doubt we have those kinds of people today. I won’t go so far as to say violent revolution is never necessary, there are many instances where it is necessary, but I also believe there are other alternatives that should be examined before such a move is made.

    To win a war one must be creative. Even Sun Tzu, the man (or men depending on who you talk to) who wrote The Art of War, said, “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” The most desirable of victories are those obtained without bloodshed.