Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

A Counterargument to a Common Statist Argument

One argument made by statists to justify the existence of the state is that without the state that would be roving gangs going around taking everybody’s shit. This argument makes little sense in my opinion. First, it assumes that humans are inherently uncooperative and prefer to take instead of trade. Second, it assumes the state itself isn’t a roving gang of thugs who go around and take everybody’s shit.

Let’s discuss the first issue, the assumption that humans are inherently uncooperative. If the existence of the state is the only thing between modern society and complete chaos then I must know, how did humans cooperate long enough to establish a state? Anti-statists, such as myself, believe humans are inherently cooperative and use the existence of society as proof. What is society after all? It’s groups of humans who have come together to interact with one another, namely in trade. Without the division of labor that society brings each individual would be forced to provide for all of their means themselves. Imagine if you had to make every pair of shoes you’ve owned by hand. This would involve everything from obtaining the leather to creating the thread for the stitching. Then imagine other modern luxuries such as air conditioners and computers. It’s pretty easy to see that the lack of division of labor would mean modern technology would not exist.

Thankfully humans are cooperative enough that we decided to take advantage of divided labor. You perform your part of the work and I’ll perform my part. If I’m a shoemaker I’ll buy my leather from somebody who raises cattle. I believe division of labor is ultimately what lead humans to develop societies. Every task humans perform is made easier by cooperation. Hunting a large wooly mammoth seems a monumental task for one man but is certainly doable for a hunting party.

If humans were uncooperative we would not have modern society, instead we would still be in caves. Unfortunately statists take the rare exceptions to cooperative humans, the thieves, and use them as the rule. Were this true Iceland wouldn’t have enjoyed 300 years of relatively peaceful statelessness.

What about the second assumption? When somebody says the only thing between modern society and roving gangs of thieves is the state they are stating a fallacy for the state is a roving gang of thieves. Everything the state does is pays for though theft. Whether that theft is taxation or printing money (which causes inflation, which is nothing more than the theft of an individual’s purchasing power) is irrelevant, it’s still theft. If you don’t pay your taxes then the state will simply take your shit. Depending on how behind you are on your taxes you may lose your home and your car.

A state can’t stand between modern society and roving gangs because the state itself is a roving gang. They are taking your shit.

The Hypocrisy of Protection Laws

I touched on this subject last week but it bears a more in depth post. The nanny state has been passing laws meant to protect people for ages now, unfortunately any law meant to protect people is automatically oxymoronic.

Let’s consider what a law is. A law is a decree that either allows, mandates, or prohibits an action or set of actions by threat of violence. This is always the case, there is no such thing as a law that isn’t backed by the threat of violence. For example, if you commit murder you will be arrested and if you attempt to resist the arresting officers they will use force to take you; If you resist sufficiently they will even go so far as to kill you.

Protection laws are ones that mandate or prohibit an action or set of actions that have been deemed harmful. In my previous posted I talked about the new law being pushed in New York City that would ban restaurant and theater owners from selling soft drinks in containers that have a storage capacity greater than 16 ounces. In Minnesota we have laws that mandate the wearing of seat belts while in a motor vehicle and prohibit smoking cigaretts inside publicly accessible buildings (basically any building somebody works in). The idea behind these laws is that not wearing a seat belt is dangerous as is smoking.

Mandating or prohibiting an action through the threat of force to protect somebody is hypocritical. When Minnesota mandates vehicle occupants wear a seat belt they’re actually saying, “Wear a seat belt or else…” The “or else” part starts at a fine which, if not paid, will escalate into kidnapping and even murder. There is no logic behind such laws. How can one claim to be protecting another by threatening that person? Can I enter your home, pull a gun on you, and demand you stop eating potato chips? No, I would go to jail for such an act. Yet when the state does the exact same thing people cheer it.

Anytime a politician starts promoting a law to protect you remember that he really means to threaten you if you perform actions that he believes are harmful.

The Meetings

It’s pretty well known that I’m a staunch individualist. Collectivism isn’t my thing. One of my biggest gripes with the collectivist philosophy is the whole idea of needing to reach consensus.

For those who haven’t observed collectivist decision making I can sum it up as this: it’s a big meeting where nobody is allowed to leave until everybody agrees on something. One example of this are the general assemblies made popular by the Occupy movement. I actually went and observed several of these assemblies and they were amazingly efficient at being entirely inefficient. Nothing of importance could get done because it’s impossible to get everybody to agree on anything. If you have a group larger than one simple decisions, like deciding where to eat during lunch, become more complex. While you may want Mexican food the other person may have a hankering for Chinese food. Expand this now, imagine you have 50 or 100 people trying to decide where to eat. Change up the scenario a bit more and instead of deciding where to eat now our group of 50 to 100 people are trying to decide what to use their collective funds on.

While I understand meetings are periodically necessary I hate them. They eat into time that could be used more productively and often accomplish nothing of value. Imagine if every societal decision had to be made by holding a meeting. Do you think Henry Ford would have been able to introduce the masses to the efficient assembly line if he needed the approval of everybody in his community? Do you think Apple would have been able to built the first personal computer if they needed everybody’s approval? Probably not. Innovation comes from individuals with drive, and nothing kills drive like long meetings. If you want to shutdown a go-getting quickly schedule him for consecutive back-to-back two hour meetings. Before you know the go-getter will be making a difficult decision between hanging himself or shooting himself.

I could never survive in a collectivist society because I couldn’t stand the fucking meetings. When I want to do something I do it. The last thing I want to do is sit on my ass, twiddle my thumbs, and wait for everybody to decide on whether or not I can do what it is I want to do.

In my opinion the ultimate downfall of collectivism are the meetings. I witnessed the failure of collective decision making at OccupyMN, decisions that appeared to be simple matters often took days of arguing between any decision was finally made, and often people voted in favor of it solely because they were sick of arguing and wanted to move on to other things. The only time anything notable was accomplished was when a few individuals said, “We’re doing this! Anybody who wants to join us do so.” Consensus decision making doesn’t work with me, I don’t even want consensus. In fact I won’t even attend the pointless meetings, while people are wasting their time trying to decide on how they’re going to make decisions I’ll be busy doing something. If you need me I’ll be in the shop.

Benefits by Force

A little chart produced by Think Progress has been making a second set of rounds on my social media feeds so I thought I’d address it. The charge describes the number of weeks of paid maternity leave several countries mandate by state decree (click to embiggen):

To many of my friends this chart demonstrates the horrible working conditions modern women in the United States are subjected to. Why, Canada gives women 50 weeks of paid maternity leave! They don’t seem to consider the fact that this paid maternity leave is only provided at the point of a gun. In order to provide such a benefit either the state must pay the women on maternity leave or the employer. If the state does it then it can only be done through theft, and if a business is forced to do it then it can only be done through the threat of violence.

People who are demanding the United States provide paid maternity leave should stop asking for it and start taking it. Do you want paid maternity leave? Is your employer unwilling to take it? Are you petitioning the state to provide it? Why not cut ou the middle man? Walk over to your neighbors’ homes, put a gun to their heads, and take what money you feel you’re owed. That’s what you’re demanding the state do for you after all.

This is the thing that irks me about the progressive movement. They aren’t trying to get social changes through voluntary cooperation, they’re trying to get it through force. Instead of advocating companies provide paid maternity leave or setting up mutual aid societies to help women on maternity leave they’re asking the state to use its gun to force the issue.

People want fre shit. If getting that free shit means forcefully taking it from others so be it, so long as somebody else performs the theft. It’s no different than the gun control advocates who demand the police rush to their house and kill the intruder; they’re against violence unless it’s done by proxy.

Before some member of the progressive movement accuses me of being misogynistic, waging a war on women, or simply being an asshole let me clarify this: I’m not against people voluntarily creating a mechanism to help people with newborn children. I would love to see a mutual aid society that focuses on helping families with newborns, in fact I would love to be a member of such a society because I know those services will likely be important to me when I decide to have children. You will get no argument from me if an employer decides to voluntarily offer paid maternity leave. If neighbors want to band together to help new mothers I’m all for it. I encourage helping one another but I can’t, in good conscious, support the initiation of violence.

Explain to Me Again How We Don’t Live in a Police State

People keep telling me that I’m living in the freest country on Earth. If that’s the case then the rest of the world must be one giant supermax prison:

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.

[…]

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.

“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.

People were removed from their vehicles and handcuffed with no probably cause, no reasonable suspicion, and no warrant. The only thing the police had to go on was a “reliable” tip. That’s not even the worst part of this story:

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

Shame on every person who gave the police permission to search their vehicle. Each and every one of you demonstrated one of the worst aspects of modern American society, mindless subservience. If a costume-clad thug pulls you out of your vehicle, handcuffs you, and asks for permission to search your vehicle the only correct response is, “Go fuck yourself.” Seriously. At such a point you should say, “Officer, I don’t consent to a search of my person or property.”

I would be livid if the police did that to me. In fact I would likely lose my typical professional demeanor and go straight to the stereotypical anarchist mode of yelling, “Fuck you pig!” When the police are acting like this they’re no longer deserving of well-mannered responses. In fact every police officer involved in this stunt should be tossed in the slammer for kidnapping and every person who granted the police permission to search their vehicle should attend a course on Constitutional protections.

We need to stop kowtowing the state and its thugs and rekindle the American tradition of rebelliousness.

Flags and Nationalism

Flags are seen as symbols of countries and the ideals that supposedly stand for. In reality they are symbols used by governments to build blind nationalism. The United States government is so in love with their flag that they have written insanely detailed codes regarding it. Mind you, most of these codes are broken on a daily basis by some of the most patriotic of individuals:

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

[…]

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Regardless, my point has nothing to do with people ‘disrespecting’ the flag. In fact what I’m about to say is quite the opposite of such nonsense, I’m going to ‘disrespect’ the flag. The picture above is a quote by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy who has said some very intelligent things beyond that short quote above. I agree with her regarding what a flag really is. Throughout my early school career we were made to stand up, put our hand over our heart, and mindlessly recite the following words:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

At the time I merely recited the words because we were told to and we were told to recite those words because it was hoped we were impressionable enough to be brainwashed into mindless nationalistic robots. I’ve briefly mentioned my distain for the Pledge of Allegiance before:

The Pledge of Allegiance was a marketing ploy to instill nationalism. Since nationalism is one of the planks of fascism I’m not too fond of practicing it. Furthermore I’m none too inclined to recite a piece of propaganda written by a socialist.

Setting aside the fact the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist we need to stop and analyze the words. First, the pledge is to the flag and the republic it represents. We’re not pledging our allegiance to ideals like liberty or opposing tyranny, we’re pledging it to a republic. Whether that republic is the freest country on Earth or the most tyrannical isn’t even touched upon, you’re just supposed to be an obedient citizen who will ally yourself with the state.

Arundhati’s quote above rings true. The flag is first used to shrink wrap your brain before it is used to ceremoniously cover your coffin. You are supposed to die for your republic, even if your republic is a tyrannical dictatorship. This is what bothers me, the United States was supposedly founded on the ideal of liberty. We’re not supposed to be subservient to the state, the state is supposed to be subservient to us. Unfortunately it’s easy to build nationalism in a population, in fact it probably has something to do with our innate tribalism. You must first create a national identity, then you must create a divide, and finally you need only send good men and women to die.

In the United States nationalism is create continuously and through many different methods. The Pledge of Allegiance is only one way, we’re also constantly bombarded with concepts like respecting various political offices (I’ve written my thoughts on that subject before), we’re instructed to worship “civil servants” such as the police, etc. Hell, an entire section of federal law is dedicated to respecting the flag!

Then we have the divide. Before today various enemies of the state were created. First people living in the United States were supposed to be afraid of the “savage” Native Americans, later it was the Spanish, after them it was the anarchists, followed by the communists, today it’s Muslims. In every case the state used the national identify they created to also create a divide. It’s “us” versus “them.” “They” want to destroy our way of life. “They” want to kill our children. “They” want to take our freedom. You’re either with “us” or you’re with “them.” After the divide is created the state merely has to send armies to fight “them” and use the deaths of “us” as further proof of “their” barbarity. It worked during manifest destiny, it worked during the Vietnam War, and it’s working today with the invasions of the Middle East.

As I’ve said, I don’t pledge my allegiance to a flag or a republic. I pledge my allegiance to individuals I deem worth of it, I pledge my allegiance to ideas I believe in, I certainly don’t pledge my allegiance haphazardly or without good cause. Saying this is tantamount to heresy. You are proclaimed a witch and demands for your trail are raised. Self-declared patriots will scream “How dare you disrespect our flag!” or “How dare you not say the Pledge of Allegiance!” In their mind your unwillingness to pledge your allegiance to the flag means you’re with “them” and if you’re with “them” you’re against “us.”

What so many people are too blind to see is the fact there is no “us” or “them.” There are only individuals, all of whom are unique. We’ve been raised our entire lives to swear mindless obedience to the state. Public education is all about obedience, you’re not supposed to think critically, you’re supposed to do and believe what you are told. Teachers, the chief propagandists, are described as gods and you’re instructed to kneel down and worship them. Their word is law. If they say two plus two equals five you’re suppose to nod your head and mindlessly repeat “Five!” whenever asked the sum of two and two. When your teacher tells you the United States is the greatest and freest country on Earth you’re supposed to nod and accept it as fact, you’re suppose to stand up and swear your undying love and allegiance to your flag, you’re suppose to be outraged when anybody disrespect your country or its symbol.

Some will eventually see the situation for what it is and break free of the trap while others will not. In the eyes of those who haven’t broken free of the trap I’m a pariah who is to be shunned. Frankly, I stopped giving a damn what other people think of me long ago because I realize they view me as part of the nebulous “them” and thus their hatred is irrational and without basis.

What’s Need Got to Do With It

Advocates of gun rights know gun control advocates love to ask, “Why do you need X?” where X is any firearm that the gun control advocate is trying to ban. Gun control advocates aren’t the only group who like to use the “need” argument, collectivists love to use it to.

Whenever I talk about the wonders of the market some collectivist inevitably tries to swoop in and rain on my parade. One of my favorite aspects of the market is the ability to provide for the wants of so many. If you want an expensive sports car there are several to choose from, if you want a cheap car to get you from point A to point B there are also many to choose from. Do you want an expensive handmade wristwatch? Rolex, Ball, Omega, and many others are more than happy to provide you with one. For those who prefer a cheap wristwatch Casio, Fossil, Timex, Seiko, and many others are happy to deliver you such a product. Are you looking for a reliable handgun for self-defense? Take your pick, Glock, Smith and Wesson, Springfield Armory, and many other companies can give you want you’re looking for. Planned economies doen’t have such variety, instead you are stuck choosing between a handful of state approved goods if there is any choice at all. When you drive down the road of a communist country you don’t see much variety in automobiles, there are usually a handful of models from the handful of state approved manufacturers.

When I bring this up collectivists are often quick to see we don’t need that many choices. My response is this: what does need have to do with it? Basing your argument on need is idiotic and self-defeating. All humans need is shelter, clothing, food, water, and a handful of tools. Cavemen had all of their needs met. The caves they lived in provided shelter, the animals they hunted with their crude spears provided clothing and food, trees and bushes offered more food, and flowing streams and rivers provided water. Of course they lived incredibly short lives, the average age being under 20 years. It was also a rather miserable existence since all of their time was spent hunting and gathering food, building their crude weapons, and fighting off wild animals and competing tribes. Still, they had all of their needs.

Another problem with the “need” argument is that it’s incredibly arrogant. By telling somebody they don’t “need” something you’re also telling them that you know what they need. While you may not think the guy driving the Ford F-350 needs such a large truck you have no idea if he hauls heavy trailers, workers construction, or simply enjoys the ride and feel or a large truck. Perhaps you don’t believe the woman carrying a 9mm Glock needs a weapon but her ex-husband could have a history of stalking and abuse. Who needs an expensive suit? Perhaps the owner of a high-end jewelry store where appearance is a huge part of the business. The Austrian tradition of economics is based on the fact only an individual can know what he or she needs or wants. I can no more know what you need than you could know what I need. Each individual has different hopes, desires, weaknesses, strengths, interests, aspirations, dreams, thoughts, etc. It’s impossible, in extremely arrogant, to know what another needs.

The next time somebody tries to argue what you can and can’t have based on need kindly inform them to give up their worldly possessions, live in a cave, and hunt and gather their food. Nobody needs more than that to survive.

When You Pay the State for Protection the Last Thing You Get is Protection

Many people, even minarchists, believe one of the duties of the state is to protect its people. Of course they never seem to accomplish this goal even though we keep being force to pay them. For individuals this means we have to pay the state for “protection” and purchase a means of self-defense to actually protect ourselves. For shipping companies this means they have to build a defensive fleet on top of paying the state its demanded “protection” money:

Shipping insurance companies are taking the fight against piracy into their own hands.

With plans to deploy a “private navy” in the Gulf of Aden — where Somali piracy is rampant — the Convoy Escort Program (CEP) hopes to have a fleet of 18 ships protecting merchant vessels by December, reports David Black at The National.

The $70 million private program is headed by international shipping insurer company Jardine Lloyd Thompson.
“The CEP is planning to buy seven 150-foot fast patrol boats, understood to be ex-Swedish Navy, and has already earmarked 11 former offshore supply vessels for purchase and conversion,” details Black

People often ask how one could afford defense if there was no state and this story demonstrates how. Insurance companies, having to pay out claims on lost ships, are keenly interested in protecting the ships it insures. As the problem with Somali piracy grows the insurance companies have reacted by developing a fleet of its own to protect its clients’ ships.

Every service the state provides can be done so by private entities. Unlike the state, private entities provide their services only to those who wish to acquire them through voluntary trade.

You Keep Using that Word

The state never ceases to amuse me. They attempt to turn countless philosophies, movements, religions, and other such organizations into boogeymen but have no idea what they stand for. Take anarchism for example, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) anarchists are merely “Criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities”. That quote, along with various other entirely incorrect information regarding anarchism, was obtained through domestic terrorism training material [PDF]. Let’s take a look at some anarchist criminals who were merely looking for a cause to justify their activities:

Murray Rothbard is obviously a dangerous criminal, what with his suit and bow tie. Wait, I don’t think he was ever actually imprisoned, so much for that theory. Let’s try somebody else:

Jeffrey Tucker is obviously a criminal, look at that bow tie and smile. He’s obviously evil even though he’s only been put into jail once that I’m aware of and that was failing to pay a parking ticket (absolutely dastardly, I know). Perhaps we can find somebody else to fit the narrative:

Hans Herman Hoppe speaks German, and clear sign that he’s a criminal mastermind. Once again this mastermind has managed to avoid arrest and continues to advocate the non-aggression principle and the mutually beneficial nature of the free market. Let’s try again:

Walter Block isn’t fitting the narrative either, damn it. OK, let’s try one more time:

Lysander Spooner was obviously evil. Not only did he create a company that successfully competed with the United States Post Office until the state shut him down but he was also an abolitionist.

OK, the FBI’s narrative isn’t holding up so well. It appears they may be incorrect about anarchists, perhaps they’re not all merely criminals looking for an ideology that justifies their activities. In fact many of the well-known anarchist philosophers appear to be perfectly lawful.

Incorrect generalizations weren’t the only idiotic thing found in the FBI’s training material. The thing I found most amusing is how the training material is entirely inconsistent. Take this example, on page three it’s stated that anarchists are “Highly dedicated to specific cause / ideology.” Page five says anarchists are “Not dedicated to particular cause.” What? So anarchists are highly dedicated to a specific cause but aren’t dedicated to a particular cause?

As I explained in my Anarchism 101 post, anarchism is a vast philosophy that covers individualists and collectivists. Some anarchists are violent revolutionaries while others believe in the non-aggression principle and oppose violent revolution. The FBI doesn’t want to take the time to cover such facts through because it fails to paint anarchists as the evil boogeymen the state would want you to believe they are. Whenever you hear some state organ explain how one group or another is evil, violent, and wants you dead remember this post. If they’re willing to lie about anarchists then they’re willing to lie about anybody.

If You’re in Venezuela Get Out Now

If I have any readers in Venezuela, something I doubt but anything is possible, get the hell out of there:

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

I’ve covered the situation in Venezuela before. Every time they’ve tightened restrictions on private gun ownership crime has only continued to go up. I’m assuming the Venezuelan state isn’t composed entirely of idiots so there must be another reason they’re moving to ban private firearm ownership, and I can guarantee their plans aren’t going to be good for the people living there.

If you living in Venezuela I can only urge you to flee and if you’re unable or unwilling to flee you must not comply with this prohibition. Keep your arms, hide them in the deepest hole you can find that is still accessible to you. Do not willingly be suckered into putting yourself entirely at the mercy of the state, especially since the violent crime rate is so high. Let us not forget the history of gun control:

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

I’m guessing Chavez is either worried about winning the next election, a situation that may require him to seize absolute control and abolish the sham democracy, or he’s planning on doing a massive confiscation of wealth. Venezuela is a Peoples’ Paradise after all and Peoples’ Paradises usually use wealthy individuals as boogeymen to distract the proles from the state’s actions. The wealthy end up being accused of exploiting the working man and keeping wealth tied up so it can’t go to help those in need. Once the people are fired up and ready to accept any action taken against the wealthy, the state moves in, confiscates the wealth, and keeps it while claiming it’s going to be distributed to help those in need.