Tag: Agora! Anarchy! Action!

Who Will Haul the Trash

When discussing anarchism with statists you must expect to have a wall of tired arguments hurled at you. The most common criticisms of anarchism come in the form of questions such as “Who will build the roads?” and “Who will haul the trash?” These criticisms rely on the idea that people are unwilling to perform actions in self-interest if those actions may benefit more than just themselves. Fortunately such criticisms are easily addressed by looking at the actions of individuals who have found alternatives to the state for basic infrastructure maintenance and trash disposal:

When the lamps illuminating Ralph Kelly’s street were switched off, he and his neighbours together paid the city about $100 to “adopt” a streetlight and reignite a shared bulb. There was also an “adopt a trash can” program, where the city supplied the bin but residents hauled the garbage to privately run participating dumpsters.

[…]

So when the government shut off the landmark fountain in America the Beautiful Park three years ago, non-profits and residents banded together to raise $25,000 to keep it flowing. When the city considered closing the innercity’s Westside Community Center, the Woodland Valley Chapel offered to manage it with only limited municipal support. That partnership, and others like it, continues to this day.

When the police force was slashed and Chief Pete Carey “needed to get innovative,” as he put it in an interview, volunteers became community service officers. They cost 60% less than police officers and can respond to non-injury traffic accidents or even burglaries so long as the thief has left the scene.

[…]

“What happens is that neighbourhoods with money started providing these services, while poorer neighbourhoods didn’t,” said Bob Loevy, a retired Colorado College politics professor who paid $80 to turn on his streetlight.

And when the city slashed park services, people noticed.

“I live near a park,” one Grade 8 student told the mayor during the recent townhall meeting. “The bathrooms there are ruined. There are no stalls or doors or anything. So when I go to the park in the summer and I want to go to the bathroom, there are no doors. It’s really awkward. Is there any chance you could maybe clean up the bathrooms in the parks? Make them a little nicer and maybe even supply some toilet paper?”

Statists will point to the streetlights in poorer neighborhoods not being lit and park restrooms not being clean or stocked with toilet paper as support for their claim that the state is necessary. Such a claim entirely ignores the fact that streetlights in poorer neighborhoods and well-maintained restrooms in parks are not actually desired. Consumers have to make numerous economic decisions every day. They have access to a scarce amount of means that can be employed to achieve their ends. As they don’t have enough means to achieve all of their desired ends they must prioritize. Consumers will essentially make a list of their wants and order them from most wanted to least wanted. There are many things I want including a Glock 21 Gen4, a Surly fat bike, and a functioning laptop. Since I don’t have enough means to achieve all of my desired ends, at least not all at once, I have prioritized my wants. The first ends I want to fulfill is getting a new laptop because I use my laptop to perform work. Second on my list is a Glock 21 Gen4 because it’s more attainable (i.e. cheaper) than the bike. Streetlights and park restrooms are ends and people must decide whether or not those ends are of sufficient value to delay or forego other ends.

Obviously people in Colorado Springs’s poorer neighborhoods haven’t given streetlights a high priority nor has anybody living in the town given a high priority to park restrooms. This demonstrates how the state distorts markets. Under the state’s rule streetlights were lit on every street and park restrooms were clean and had toilet paper stocked even though there wasn’t sufficient demand from the affect communities for either. On the other hand the people had enough desire for hauling away trash and security to implement systems to provide both.

When statists ask “Who will light the streetlights in poor neighborhoods?” or “Who will clean park restrooms and stock them with toilet paper?” the answer is nobody because there isn’t enough demand from the affected communities. On the other hand when statists ask “Who will haul away the trash?” or “Who will protect the community?” (I would like to know who protects communities now, but I digress) the answer is those who desire the services. Individuals will cooperate to achieve their desired ends. Few people enjoy living in squalor and will invest means to achieve the ends of a clean living space. Sometimes this involves hauling the trash to a dump yourself, sometimes it involves you hauling your neighbor’s trash away to avoid it affecting you, and sometimes it involves individuals volunteering to haul away trash for the entire community. Regardless of the means chosen the ends will be accomplished without coercive force.

It was Bound to Happen

New York and California have demonstrated what happens when governments try to soak the wealthy for more taxes, the wealthy leave. Before Britain’s last general election the country’s government raised the top tax bracket to 50 percent. Needless to say the things went exactly as expected:

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

One of the reasons taxing the wealthy to makeup for government shortfalls doesn’t work is because the wealthy have the means to leave. What motivation does a person making $1,000,000 have to stay in a country if they are being forced to give $500,000 of it to the government?

Of course this only applies to declared income. As we agorists know the state can’t tax what it doesn’t know about.

The State Reduces the Cost of Committing Violent Acts

After hurricane Katrina the number of thefts skyrocketed. Individuals scrambled to defend themselves and their property from roving bands of looters. Likewise after hurricane Sandy struck the Eastern seaboard looting in affected areas skyrocketed. Once again individuals found themselves scrambling to defend themselves and their property. What isn’t mentioned by most people is that the state lowered the cost of committing violent acts such as looting.

In the aftermath of Katrina the National Guard actually confiscated firearms from individuals. Likewise many of the states heavily affected by Sandy, including New York and New Jersey, have very stringent gun control laws on the books. In both cases looters could be reasonably sure that their victims were unable or poorly able to defend themselves.

Whenever the state moves to make self-defense more difficult, either through confiscating weapons or implementing laws that make legal self-defense difficult, it reduces the cost of performing violence. Robert Heinlein wrote, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” in his novel Beyond the Horizon. It’s true, an armed society is a polite society. Criminals, like everybody else, perform actions as a means to achieve ends. In the case of a thief their ends are to obtain property. They may want the property for personal use or to exchange it for something else. Either way they have determined that taking the desired property from another is a better method than exchanging voluntarily for it. This brings us back to cost-benefit analysis.

The cost of robbing an armed individual is higher than the cost of robbing an unarmed individual. An armed individual may resist the robbery attempt with a great deal of violence whereas an unarmed individual will only have access to the violence they can produce with their bare hands. Therefore a criminal faces far greater bodily harm, and even loss of life, when they rob an armed individual but likely face little risk of bodily harm or death, especially if they themselves are armed, when robbing an unarmed individual. The cost of robbing an armed individual is relatively high compared to the cost of robbing an unarmed individual.

By disarming individuals or severely restricting the ability of individuals to arm themselves the state reduces the cost of committing violent acts. Laughably they usually justify disarming individuals under the guise of protecting individuals. Gun control is usually justified to the public by claiming it will prevent violent individuals from obtaining firearms. Ironically gun control laws actually increase the likelihood of violent crimes by reducing the cost of initiating violence. I would argue that allowing everybody to remain armed, even individuals with a history of violence, would be far safer than preventing anybody from being armed. Why reduce the cost of performing violent acts? Perhaps a great number of violent criminals would have been dissuaded from committing their violent crimes had they faced the likely threat of bodily harm or death.

The state’s reduction of the cost of violence doesn’t stop at disarming individuals or passing laws that make self-defense more difficult. Through its monopoly on violence the state reduces the cost of violence for individuals in its employ. Consider the man who is facing the death penalty for defending himself against police officers. Why are officers so willing to perform no knock raids? Because the state has granted them special legal protection from consequences caused by unannounced raids. Individuals inside a targeted home face potential death if they defend themselves from police officers whereas police officers seldom face any consequences for harming a homeowner. If somebody wants to commit a violent act they simply need to join the state’s employ; receive an official costume, badge, and gun; and enforce the state’s decrees. So long as your perform violence in the name of the state the cost is relatively low.

People often ponder about the cause of high violent crime rates in the United States. One of the causes is that initiating violence is relatively cheap. Combining a generally disarmed populace with legal methods for psychopaths to perform violent acts nets you a lot of violence. The state protecting us from violent individuals is a farce. We’re subjected to more violence because of the state.

EDIT: 2012-11-14 14:40: General spelling and grammatical fixes. Thanks to Steven for pointing them out.

Buying Debt Just to Forgive It

I feel almost alone in the realm of libertarian bloggers who doesn’t despise everything the Occupy movement does. Many participants in Occupy are hardcore socialists but even hardcore socialists come up with good ideas. One of the ideas recently spawned from the Occupy movement is the Rolling Jubilee project, which is looking to buy up debt just to forgive it:

The Rolling Jubilee project is seeking donations to help it buy-up distressed debts, including student loans and outstanding medical bills, and then wipe the slate clean by writing them off.

Individuals or companies can buy distressed debt from lenders at knock-down prices if it the borrower is in default or behind with payments and are then free to do with it as they see fit, including cancelling it free of charge.

As a test run the group spent $500 on distressed debt, buying $14,000 worth of outstanding loans and pardoning the debtors. They are now looking to expand their experiment nationwide and are asking people to donate money to the cause.

I really like this project because it stands to erase much of the debt currently facing individuals voluntarily. No funds from tax victims is required, no money has to be printed, and no coercion has to be used. Instead individuals can voluntarily donate money to the cause of helping people currently facing crushing debt.

Another interesting potential of this project is the creation of a market for distressed debt relief. One of my friends mentioned that this project could cause the price of distressed debt to increase as demand by the Rolling Jubilee project increased. If that happened the project would effectively be self-defeating because it would raise the cost of buying distressed debt higher than its donors could afford. I see another potential outcome, it could decrease the cost of distressed debt. As a general rule a creditor would rather receive something from one of their debitors than nothing. Losing $90,000 is better than losing $100,000 after all. Because of this it’s possible that creditors could enter a bidding war with one another for Rolling Jubilee’s money. Creditors could try to undercut one another in the hopes that the Rolling Jubilee project will buy their debt. Instead of getting nothing from their debitors creditors could get a portion of what they loaned.

It’ll be interesting to watch if this project gets off of the ground.

Even Ron Paul Says It’s Game Over

People keep talking about the encroaching fiscal cliff and what we must do to avoid it. I’ve given up on avoiding it and believe that the best option is to put a brick on the accelerator, jump out of the car, and let it go over the edge. There are too many statists in this country who want the government to do and provide everything for them. Ron Paul explained our problems succinctly:

“People do not want anything cut,” he said. “They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don’t believe that we’ve gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can’t have a budgetary solution if you don’t change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot.”

People don’t want to stop the looting, they just want a piece of the loot. To once again quote George Carlin:

If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.’

A majority of people who participate in the political process are selfish and ignorant. Since the state has the capacity for violence necessary to take from the people en masse it’s not surprising that a majority of people who are attracted to it are those wanting to take from others. In fact that’s the root of the problem. The state lowers the cost faced by somebody wanting to rob another. Without the state an individual wanting to steal from another would have to face the entire cost of doing so, including the possibility of bodily harm or death, directly. With the state they can shove off a majority of the cost, especially the possibility of bodily harm or death, to everybody else. It’s a system designed for looters by looters, which is why reforming it will not work. Nobody wants to reform it because reforming it would cut off the gravy train.

Consider every person on welfare, every teacher working in a public school, ever police officer, every clerk at a government building, every soldier, etc. are dependent on the state. Now consider that the state is dependent on expropriation. Do you think we can turn this ship around? So many are dependent on the state and its expropriation that there’s no practical way to reform anything. The empire will collapse and there’s nothing anybody can do to stop it.

Ending Statism by Giving Statists What They Want

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

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

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

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

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

Consider Guy Fawkes and Our Current Situation

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot;
I see of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Today is the 5th of November, known as Guy Fawkes Night in Britain. In 1605 a man by the name of Guido Fawkes was captured hauling gunpowder under the House of Lords in a plot to assassinate King James I. Members of the Gunpowder Treason planned to replace the Protestant monarchy with a Catholic monarchy, effectively returning England to a time before the Church of England was separated from the Catholic Church.

There are similarities between that time and today. The beginning of the Gunpowder Treason goes back to 1534 when Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Catholic Church in order to annul is marriage (the Catholic Church wouldn’t approve Henry’s divorce so they were no longer politically convenient). Part of the separation included the issuance of the Act of Supremacy of 1534, which established the monarch as the head of the Church of England and the monarchy. Before the Act of Supremacy was issued the Pope was in charge of the Catholic Church, and by extension the Church of England, whereas the monarch was the head of the monarchy. With the separation of church and state eliminated the monarchs of England moved to eliminate competition to the religion they now controlled.

In 1559, under the reign of Elizabeth I, a second Act of Supremacy was issued that mandated anybody taking public office in England swear and oath to recognize the monarchy as the supreme head of the Church and state. Failing to swear such an oath would result in charges of treason, which ended with a death sentence. To further ensure all competition to the Church of England was greatly reduced Parliament also issued the Act of Uniformity. The Act of Uniformity made weekly worship at the Church of England compulsory. Failure to attend weekly service would result in the issuance of a fine.

The stage was set for a Catholic rebellion, which is what the Gunpowder Treason of 1605 was about. Conspirators in the plot hoped to restore Papal control over the Church of England by removing the Protestant monarch and replacing him with a Catholic one.

Like Guy Fawkes, we live under a totalitarian state. Groups labeled as subversive are repressed just as Catholics were repressed after the first Act of Supremacy was issued. Things are also notably different because the repression isn’t based on religious beliefs, instead repression is based on statism. People standing against the state are actively targeted by the state. Anybody advocating liberty is prevented from obtaining any real power by the currently established state. Political parties that are unwilling to tow the current establishment party line are actively prevented from participating in presidential debates and from receiving federal campaign funds. People who are not Republicans or Democrats are treated as second class individuals just as Catholics were after the Church of England split from Rome.

The more things change the more they stay the same. History is littered with power hungry individuals suppressing any potential competition. Today, like in the time of Guy Fawkes, we live under a system that attempts to eliminate state competition. We can’t vote our way out of this. Any gain we make through the political system, if any gain is even possible, will be temporary at best. The only way to achieve liberty will be to eliminate the state itself. So long as we grant a monopoly on violence to individuals and groups we will be subjecting ourselves to their whims. This is why I advocate anarchism, it is the only way to break the cycle of power hungry individuals suppressing all competition to their reign. Remember, remember, the 5th of November for it has lessons that are applicable even today.

How the State Exploits Organic Societal Developments to Sieze Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agorism and Scamming State Programs

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

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

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

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

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

More on the State’s Witch Hunt Against Anarchists

The more I research the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) recent arrest of anarchists the more it’s appearing to be a state witch hunt. During this witch hunt the FBI has claimed that the anarchists were arrested for property damage that was caused during May Day. A warrant accidentally unsealed in the Seattle United States District Court shows that the agency’s story is questionable at best:

May Day began with peaceful demonstrations in downtown Seattle, but shortly before noon a swarm of protesters, dressed all in black, massed together and began striking out. They targeted Nike and banks; they slashed tires and broke windows and sprayed anti-capitalist graffiti as some made their way to the Nakamura courthouse. Afterward, members of the so-called “black bloc” protesters shed their dark clothing and blended into the crowd.

The search warrant says the courthouse building, on Spring Street and Sixth Avenue, sustained tens of thousands of dollars in damage, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office could not provide a specific dollar amount. Destruction of government property in excess of $1,000 is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

[…]

Meanwhile, the FBI set out to find those responsible for the courthouse damage. Agents reported spending long hours reviewing surveillance-camera footage, news video and still photos of the crowd that day, trying to identify suspects based on clues: the white strip around one suspect’s waist, the “fringe” of a shirt, the shape of a backpack.

What the warrant makes clear is that state and federal agents were watching some members of the small group of Portland anarchists even before May Day. The affidavit says they were tracking members as early as April 9, when they and others were “all observed by FBI surveillance at an event” in Portland that day changing out of black clothing.

If this investigation was related to damage caused on May Day why was the FBI spying on the arrested individuals beforehand? My guess is the FBI wanted to create more glory for themselves. Since they lacked any cases that would put them on the front page of newspapers throughout the country they reverted to their usual trick of making up a boogeyman. Historically anarchists have made excellent boogeymen because the state has most people convinced that all anarchists are violent. When the headlines say the FBI arrested a group of anarchists most people say, “Good job, those guys deserve to be in prison!” Going after anarchists is a fairly safe thing to do when you’re an agency trying to create a little hero worship.

After selecting their boogeyman the FBI sat back, spied on some anarchists, and waited for the proper opportunity to move in. That opportunity came on May Day when a peaceful demonstrated suddenly turned violent. The state has a history of using police provocateurs during anarchist demonstrations to incite violence and the FBI has been caught creating and “stopping” terrorists so often that the mainstream media has even caught on. Considering those facts I would not be surprised if the individuals who incited the violence in Seattle on May Day were actually state agents. After all anarchist black bloc demonstrations involve participants covering their faces, which makes identification almost impossible. It’s not difficult for police officers to dress in black, cover their faces, and break things in order to create an excuse to make mass arrests.

Combining the evidence accidentally revealed through the unsealed (and quickly resealed) warrant, the fact that not enough evidence exists to press charges against the arrested anarchists, and the FBI’s history of making up criminals gives this case has all the indicators of being fabricated malarkey.