Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals – Page 107

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.

Romney OK With Federal Agents Murdering Medical Marijuana Users

I know the title of this post won’t come as a surprise to you guys but Romney really does take the cake for being a total dick (OK Santorum is still worse but not by much). A dying medical marijuana patient flat out asked Romney if he would arrest medical marijuana users and their doctors. Romney’s response? He doesn’t answer the question and then ignores the poor dying bastard:

Romney did say he doesn’t support any form of marijuana but what he really should have said is, “If you think you’re in pain now just wait until I have you thrown in the slammer with Bubba. Hell I may just have some federal agents burst into your home and kill you right on the spot you stupid peasant.”

Asked the same question but the same man got an entirely different answer from Ron Paul:

Unlike Romney,Paul won’t use violence to enforce the erroneous drug war. What you put into your body is your own damned business whether you need the substance for medical reasons or are a recreational user.

Remember the prohibition of marijuana is done by law and like all laws it must be enforced with the use of violence. By supporting the war on drugs you are literally agreeing that federal agents should be allowed to murder those who grow, sell, or use marijuana. Romney obviously has no quarrel with the idea of using federal agents to murder this sick guy and his doctor. It’s one reason in a million why I won’t vote for Romney no matter what.

Voting for The Lesser of Two Evils

The election season is ramping up and results from state primaries are already rolling in. Obama, er, I mean Romney has won straw polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which has ramped up the “Ron Paul can’t win” bandwagon. Many people, especially in the gun community, are now talking about voting for the lesser of two evils to ensure Obama gets tossed out of office.

I’ll start by stating up front that I’m not big on the whole voting for a ruler thing. In fact this picture sums up my belief on voting:

As a sovereign individual I see no need for rulers and have no desire to choose one. If I’m going to get fucked with a switchblade why do I care who is holding it? It’s going to hurt just as much if Romney is holding the switchblade as it will if Obama is holding it. With that said I also realize that we’re currently stuck with manor lords so I may have to play the game to help ensure I get the “less” shitty ruler. Realizing this who do you think I’ll vote for if Romney gets the nomination?

Simply put, I won’t.

OK if Ron Paul decides to run as a third-party candidate I’ll toss him a vote and if he doesn’t I may still go to put in a vote for Gary Johnson. Either way I won’t be voting for Romney or Obama because I refuse to support either of them. No matter which of those tyrants wins we’re all going to lose. Many people are saying they will vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination because we need to get rid of Obama. What’s the point if voting for either major party gets us Obama though? Romney isn’t Obama light, he’s white Obama. The only thing that really separates the two is the fact Romney is white, a mormon, and has political experience (something I don’t believe to be a good thing by the way).

When you vote you’re making a suggestion. Your ballot should read, “The names I’ve checked below are the individuals I suggest be granted the power to run my life and initiate violence against me should I violate one of their decrees.” The reason I’m willing to suggest Ron Paul is because he has no desire to run my life or initiate violence against me. Romney on the other hand not only wishes to run my life but he also desires to initiated violence against me and people in other countries. Fuck that guy, I’m not suggesting he be put in charge of anything, especially a military.

Many people will claim I’m part of the problem because by not suggesting Romney I’m automatically suggesting Obama. It doesn’t work that way. That logic assumes my vote is cast whether or not I actually check a box next to somebody’s name. According to these people were the vote count 100 for Romney and 100 for Obama my lack of a vote would mean 101 of Obama. See how that math doesn’t work? By not voting for Obama his count still remains at a solid 100. Hell in the grand scheme of things my vote doesn’t matter anyways so feel free not to blame me if Obama wins.

When you vote for the “lesser” of two evils you’re still stuck with evil. If you want to suggest Romney to run your life by all means go to your polling place and vote for him. While I refuse to suggest him I won’t demand you do the same but I do ask that you not scream at me for “voting for Obama” or “being part of the problem.” If you do that I’m going to scream back at you for “voting for white Obama” and “being part of the problem.”

In the end if either Romney or Obama becomes president I’ll just kick back, relax, and say, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him.”

Why Minimum Wage Laws Hurt the Unskilled Laborers

Many people who do not understand basic economics believe minimum wage laws are a positive thing. It’s easy to believe this but the truth of the matter is these laws are actually detrimental, especially to unskilled laborers who the laws are purported to protect. The following video does a great job of explaining this fact:

Another argument this video doesn’t address is the claim minimum wage laws are the reason we get paid what we do today. I’m not talking about unskilled laborers in this case but everybody, especially those in higher paying positions. Some advocates of minimum wage laws claim the abolition of these laws will cause everybody to receive far lower pay but this isn’t at all true. If your employer pays you an hourly wage of $30.00 and the minimum wage is $10.00 and hour abolishing the minimum wage law won’t drop your pay by $10.00 and hour. The reason you’re paid $30.00 an hour is because your employer believes you bring at least $30.00 and hour of value to the company, not because you bring at least $20.00 an hour in value beyond minimum wage. Were minimum wage laws to be abolished tomorrow it’s unlikely anybody would receive a pay cut, but a huge number of unskilled laborers would find themselves with opportunities to work as factories were brought back to the United States (unless other rules and regulations continue to make manufacturing in this country too cost prohibitive).

The Only Tool of The State is Violence

I’ve said it many times but it bears repeating; the only tool available to the state is violence. Every rule, regulation, and law passed by the state is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Even blowing a stop sign can ultimately lead to violence being brought against you as explained so well by Jeffery Trucker in the video posted here earlier today. This is why libertarians are so wary about passing new laws, doing so necessarily means the people will be subjected to more force. A man in Austin, Texas named John Bush explains this fact all too well:

Mr. Bush was prohibited from to the Austin City Council for one year. Think about the implications of that for one moment. In our country you’re supposedly able to address your government and take your grievances to them yet they hold the power to prevent you from doing so. Any number of excuses can be used to prohibit you from addressing state agents meaning you really have no right of redress.

What one organization is given a monopoly on creating and enforcing the rules you can’t be truly free.

Security Incentives

It’s an exceedingly rare instance where I disagree with Bruce Schneier but in his recent post regarding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) I have to say he was incorrect:

Hard to argue with most of that, although abolishing the TSA isn’t a good idea. Airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn’t make sense; their incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security.

Personally I won’t argue with his statement as far as security goes, somebody should be in charge of airport security, but that entity shouldn’t be the federal government. This debate is really one of economics though as Schneier apparently has a misunderstanding regarding incentives.

The airliners primary incentive isn’t passenger service or security, it’s profits. Like any business the airliners are in business to make money and in order to do that they must keep costs down and ensure customers are happy. Usually when I mention the need for airliners to keep costs down they assume I’m talking about bookkeeping items like employee wages, fuel costs, and airplane maintenance. Those are not the only costs though as airliners must also ensure the protection of their property.

Airplanes and airports are expensive properties to replace. Airliners are not going to be happy if their aircraft are constantly being hijacked, flown into buildings, or simply blown up. Insurance claims may cover the cost of replacing the airplanes but at high insurance costs and the possibility of insurance companies refusing to cover airliners with atrocious security-related failures. Because of the costs involved in replacing airplanes airliners have a large incentive to ensure proper security measures are taken to protect their investment. Airports are no different and thus there is incentive to protect them.

Airliners also have an incentive to protect their customers. The reason for this is rather obvious, an airliner who has an atrocious security record will soon find itself out of business. If we look at a hypothetical situation between two competing airliners we can better see this fact. For this hypothetical situation we’ll say there are two competing airliners; Security Air and Insecurity Air (I’m not creative with names, sue me). Security Air has a marvelous safety record and have only had one airplane hijacked. Their competition, Insecurity Air, on the other hand has an absolutely dismal security record with airplanes getting hijacked on a monthly basis. Given the choice between these two airliners it’s fairly obvious what one is going to have the market advantage.

Private entities like airliners have to play a balancing act though between security and convenience. Taking this example further let’s say after Security Air experienced their hijacking a competing company was formed call Transcontinental Secure Airlines, or TSA for short. TSA decides to play the security game and have implemented extreme security measures including full strip searches of passengers, random cavity searches of passengers after they get on the plane, and seat on the plane is equipped with a stun gun to subdue unruly passengers. How many customers do you think they will have? None is most likelihood.

We also have the other side of the coin to consider, what is the government incentive for keeping airplanes secure? Truthfully the government has no incentive to keep airplanes secure. No profit incentive exists because government are funded entirely by theft. The TSA has a strong incentive to instill fear in passenger and state bookkeepers to ensure the continuous flow of money and authority. In fact putting the government in charge of security is the last thing you want to do. When security fails at an airport the government rewards itself with more rules, regulations, and powers.