This is a recording from “Under the Gun” from a few weeks ago, where we discuss PorcFest, the Porcupine Freedom Festival. We talk about freedom in the true sense, where you not only care about your own freedom, but you respect others’ freedom as well. The only line that is drawn, is when someone is victimized. We also discuss the tax men that showed up at PorcFest, and how at the end of the day, everything the government does is backed only by a gun to our heads.
Limited Gov Guy: I was arguing with [my girlfriend] last night about the Affordable Care Act and how it is not the government’s place to take care of sick people. I argued instead that the government is mainly there, to plagiarize Milton Friedman’s words, for the role of enforcing contracts between individuals and punishing individuals who violate others’ rights.
Free Association Man: If an individual were to assault….. but this doesn’t mean the gov can force you to enter into a contract with a body guard.
If a wild animal were to attack… but this doesn’t mean the gov can force you to enter into a contract with an animal trainer.
If a bacteria infects… but this doesn’t mean the gov can force you into a contract with a health insurance company….
BTW: We have the CDC, NIH, and the FDA already charged with viral and bacterial defenses for the population.
The pain for the ACA is all back-loaded to 2017. Mr. Obama says the ACA is “working” because more people have health insurance. But that’s because the gov is subsidizing enrollments. This is why a SCOTUS decision against subsidies would have killed the ACA. The subsidies expire, penalties begin, and all the new taxes (not fees…thank-you Chief Justice Roberts), start Jan 1 2017.
Example: The tuition at my school is 10K. Now lets mandate that every kid on the Cape has to enroll in my school. Lets further mandate that my school has to cover all sorts of new services (health clinics, free breakfast, psych counseling…) But not-to-worry.. the tuition is subsidized so that 10K tuition will only cost you 2K and you get all these great new services. What do you know?? Enrollment is booming at my school! What will the tuition bill be in 2017 when the subsidies expire? Parents are going to be wishing for the good-old-days when they weren’t mandated to enroll and the tuition was only 10K. This is why most analyst say that the ACA is not sustainable after the subsidies expire. (google: ACA-subsidies-expiration). Johnathan Gruber – the main architect of the ACA – said that the ACA is not sustainable and called the American people “stupid” for not seeing this (http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/obama-adviser-jonathan-gruber-in-2009-obamacare-will-not-be-affordable/). And where will Mr. Obama be in 2017? Playing golf.
Scary Anarchist:Allow me to pontificate.
1. I’d much rather mitigate risk from criminals, animals, nature by voluntarily entering into contracts with privatized for profit agencies than to be forced into conditions imposed by government.
2. “Where do you find these angels to run government.” Milton Friedman.
Limited Gov Guy:These are all excellent points, but I think I should have specified.
Economics Guy: Correct! But does everybody need or want all the same services? The only way government can provide anything at all is to first take it from somebody else. If everybody wanted the exact same thing from government, and if government were efficient and had no agenda of its own, then it may indeed be the best way to provide those things.
But none of those things are true.
Joe Jarvis: I agree, it is much easier to consistently argue from the no government perspective. Then, it is a simple matter of not being robbed (in the form of taxes). Healthcare would be wrong, not necessarily because of what was provided, but because it was done by force. This is akin to how charity is no longer charity when you steal someone else’s money to donate.
Now our idea of limited government would be protection from foreign invaders essentially, and protection from being victimized by fellow citizens. In that sense the argument would be, if the USA is going to declare 3 million square miles “theirs,” then at least they have the responsibility to repel hordes and make sure they foster a safe environment within. But even this stands on shaky ground, because A) how do you pay for it without theft which is wrong, and B) how is it legitimate to claim land people already own, live on, work etc.?
If the answer to A is competing government agencies which you can defund by patronizing another one, that would seem to no longer fall under the definition of government; it would be more like a business. Yet that is exactly what would deliver the best results, as every other sector of the free market.
Scary Anarchist:Here’s a good barometer if you choose to put all other aspects aside.
Is it voluntary?
If taxes were voluntary would anybody pay them? If social security were voluntary only those who wanted it could CHOOSE to partake and pay into the system. What’s wrong with that? If police “protection” were optional, could I opt out of the system and provide my own protection? In fact isn’t this what we call privatization? Much of what we are subject to by govt. is deemed a “collective right” thus justifying it as a NON-voluntary system. If the system were option many who make their living off of thieving and controlling you and I would be out of a job. But what is a collective but a collection of individuals. I am an individual not a collective, who has different dreams, fears, hopes, wants, needs, then the next. The litmus test of all political theory for the libertarian minded is the championing of voluntary transactions and maximum individual liberty while upholding the non-aggression principal (NAP). Case and point: isn’t it good if we’re all forced to get immunization to keep deadly disease at bay (which beckons the question how are they going to force this)? This may be true but I would say NEGATIVE. Cannot subject individual liberty to this supposed “need” of the collective. If it’s truly a good idea than the market will uphold it. What is “the market” you say…. much to learn you have young Padoine!
Joe Jarvis: Yes, I believe the free market would take care of these things better than the government can. Competition and the profit motive are what will allow for this, while monopolies, including one on defense and conflict resolution, means no alternatives.
I struggle at an event like PorcFest, to find a good balance of work and play. On the one hand, the attendees are the best targeted audience for my book and writings in one place. On the other hand, it is so much fun that I find it hard to drag myself away from the revelry to sell my book, and promote my blog. The good news is, I ended up doing a lot of promotion just from having fun!
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the gay community at PorcFest seems to be growing every year. And I see this as the perfect demographic for liberty. Gays have been historically persecuted by government, so it seems natural that they would want to take their protection into their own hands, and disassociate with the entity causing the inequality in society: the government.
As the country celebrated that gay marriage is now legal in every state, we sort of just laughed: “whatever”. The government didn’t create this equality of marriage, they were the ones who created the inequality! As one meme says, gays are confusing freedom with permission. Anyway, the government shouldn’t recognize anyone’s marriage. Oppressing gays equally to straight couple doesn’t exactly make the government the savior of the gays.
Flaming Freedom got crazy! Flaming Freedom is a podcast every Thursday night from 10pm-midnight hosted by Derrick J. I told him he could be the Howard Stern of the liberty movement if he wants to. The PorcFest Flaming Freedom with a live audience has been posted, and you can listen here. I was on the first segment, and gave away a free copy of Anarchy in New England to the first person to take a shot (which also required the removal of a piece of clothing, enforced by Derrick). So Jeff from San Francisco excitedly jumped to the front of the room in order to get my book. Yes, people come from far and wide for PorcFest, I met at least three people from San Francisco. And that’s about all I can discuss about that episode of Flaming Freedom without making my readers blush.
Buzz’s Big Gay Dance Party was off the hook! They say it was the last year of the party, but I am hoping someone will pick it up and carry the torch. I just love seeing a bunch of extremely straight people dress ridiculously and dance the night away in solidarity with gay libertarians and anarchists. But the actual gay attendance this year was probably a record. And where else can you attend a Big Gay Dance party with a gun on your hip?!
Literally, everywhere, though that is nothing new for PorcFest. I find it interesting to note that more people die at music festivals than at this freedom festival where guns are on every other person’s hip, chest, back, or who knows where! There were also many knives, swords, and other instruments of defense. And no one got hurt, this year or the previous 11 years that the event has existed. And no one’s been victimized either.
The people that attend clearly value freedom, and by extension personal responsibility. Embedded in the desire for freedom and control over one’s own life, is the understanding that with great power comes great responsibility. Self ownership means you are responsible for your actions, no excuses, play like a champion. When the buck stops at the individual, there is no one to scapegoat.
I carried my Smith and Wesson .38 with an internal hammer, double action only. It was fun, since that’s not something I could do in Massachusetts without having the police called, despite my carry permit, and despite the fact that we shouldn’t need a permit to defend ourselves. I put it away when I started drinking, not because anything would happen, but because I am responsible, like most other PorcFest attendees.
And shrooms. And LSD. And mdma. But I didn’t see any heroin, cocaine, or other narcotics. I have always seen a clear difference between hallucinogens and heavy addictive drugs. In fact many studies are starting to suggest that magic mushrooms could have wonderful potential to cure the mind. One guy I talked to mentioned mushrooms in their capacity of helping him heal from a heroin addiction. One girl told me she does mushrooms quarterly as a mental clean up.
I just love the mixture of people, and the live and let live mentality. People who have never smoked weed in their lives did not bat an eye. Stoners who never carried a gun didn’t bat an eye. This is respecting others’ freedom. Live and let live! If someone isn’t hurting you, why try to restrict their freedom? And that is what PorcFest proves: we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk. Otherwise, you might just see a bunch of middle aged white guys with confederate flags and beer guts: which yes, they were there too! And no, they didn’t care that gay guys were cuddling by the nightly bonfire, and nobody else cared that someone was riding his ATV around with a confederate flag blowing in the wind.
In a free market, you aren’t shamed as a “drug dealer”. You provide a product that is in demand: marijuana. They are entrepreanuers, and the people selling weed and shrooms have more legitimate jobs than the tax men who showed up first day of PorcFest in a hilarious failure of an attempt to rob the food vendors. (They must be the new guys in the office that someone was playing a joke on… “Hey, why don’t you go try to collect taxes at PorcFest”.) In 1776, they would have been tarred and feathered, so they should consider themselves lucky.
The Future of Freedom
There were three sites in a row, the Muslim for Liberty tent, the Pagan worship tent, and the Jewish Chabad tent. My favorite Texans told me about the transition to open-mindedness in reference to each of their gay children, and then bought chocolate covered mushrooms (for, I believe, the first time). Free range children roamed the campground, without fear of creeps or danger: this voluntary community cares deeply for the welfare of each individual in the voluntary collective.
I know this movement is big, powerful, and permanent. We are going to win. I know this because we are real. It is hard to understand for people with diabolical motives, but we have none. Seriously, we just want to be left alone and live a happy and fruitful life. That is why we are going to win. We aren’t trying to change anyone, we are just trying to do what works for us. The passion, the camaraderie, the philosophy: this movement for true liberty is on a higher plane than those which work within this narrow system of government oppression, desperately trying to promote the freedoms they care about, while exerting force through government on others.
And also, we are going to win because we have more fun than everyone else. But luckily, we are not exclusive! If you value freedom; not just your own but everyone else’s, you are welcome!
I remember a public school high school history teacher telling the class, “On one end of the political spectrum is Socialism, and on the other end is Fascism”. Wrong, he was so wrong. I could even see it then, as an energetic young Republican who hated all aspects of big government… or so I thought.
Socialism is actually right next to Fascism on the political spectrum, because they are both Statist ideologies. The state can solve all problems, and will never be big enough! Everything within the state, nothing outside of it!
So clearly the opposite of everything involving the state is nothing involving the state: anarchy. Not burning businesses and smashing windows, the absence of rulers; the end of subjugation. The sovereign individual, beholden by force to no one, beholden by mutual benefit to those with whom he chooses to associate.
And now that we cleared that up, here are the top 3 reasons for Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians or anyone else towards the right of the statist spectrum to just abandon all pretenses, and go full anarchist.
#1: You hate big government! And for good reason! You know your history, and have seen what happens when the state grows: it oppresses people. The internal police state that cracks the whip over the citizens, mixed with a fiercely nationalistic military that spreads the big government philosophy worldwide are constant and integral parts of a large oppressive government. And currently, just the American military, ignoring the multitude of internal policing agencies, is larger than the next ten militaries on earth.
The Second Amendment was not for hunting, it serves as a check to tyranny. So if guns in the hands of the average citizen can keep in check the largest military and police state on earth, why would we think those same armed citizens could not repel an invasion by the next ten largest armies put together?
You wouldn’t call the exterminator and have him leave just one little cockroach, would you? No! She’ll have babies, and your house will once again be infested in a matter of weeks. So why would we leave “just a little government”? It’s not going to stay little! It is the camel’s nose under the tent. It doesn’t make sense to leave even a little government, because…
#2: You believe in the free market! The terrible consequences of crony capitalism are quite abundant, from billions wasted on subsidized green energy like Solyndra, to billions wasted in bailouts on failed companies like GM and banks like Bank of America. Then there’s regulations which favor big companies at the expense of the little ones, taxes which make some industries and investments unprofitable, and agencies like the EPA, FDA, USDA, IRS, DHS, etc. that harass the farmer and small businessman to the point of bankruptcy.
Why, why, WHY, would you trust that same government to perform such important tasks as keeping you safe, from threats at home, and abroad? You know that supermarkets have food on their shelves because of the free-ish market, you know that competition leads to better products and more choice, so why would we limit ourselves to Soviet-style rationing systems when it comes to solving crimes and preventing terrorism?
We choose different restaurants, different books, different movies, clothes, cars, houses; but when it comes to responding to an emergency, we get the one local agency that handles that. When it comes to preventing terrorism, we have to use the FBI or CIA or NSA which we aren’t even allowed to see how they operate, must fund regardless of their success rates, and can’t even be sure they are not complicit in terrorism in order to keep their agencies relevant and well-funded. [This is an example of a private organization fighting ISIS]. Choice in the market is always a good thing, there is nothing magic about crime prevention and justice that makes the market unable to function.
#3: You wish you didn’t have to associate with all these idiots! Government causes all problems we face “as a nation” because otherwise we wouldn’t have to face them as a nation, and they would be solved by whoever they affect most. I don’t want to fund cotton growth in the Arizona desert, subsidizing the real cost of water to the point where there is a shortage. It has nothing to do with me, yet because of the farm bill, I have to pay for these farmers’ water, insurance, equipment, etc. I don’t want to pay for the bombs we are dropping, I don’t want to pay for anyone’s medical care but my own, or those who I voluntarily choose to help personally or through charity. The government forces us all into a group, and then makes more laws and regulations when our forced association–surprise–causes problems.
An open border is only a problem if the government is stealing your money to give to the people who hop the fence, or setting an arbitrary minimum wage which ensures a market for illegal work. Education standards in Arkansas don’t matter to me, unless one of those schmucks is going to grow up to become President and tell the rest of the world what to do. Why do I have a say in whether Coloradans smoke a joint? Why do they have a say in whether or not I wear a seatbelt?
Stop the forced association of 300 million plus Americans, and there would be a lot fewer problems to solve! And they would be solved by the people that they matter to, and paid for by the people that they matter to, voluntarily. In the end, we would all have more individual control over our lives, (money), and circumstances, and get to choose which issues will be solved with our money. Instead, we are forced to “solve” problems we don’t care about, that don’t affect us, or that were caused in the first place by forced grouping!
So right-wingers, if you hate big government, if you believe in the free-market, and if you wish all these politicians, bureaucrats, and assholes in general would just leave you the hell alone: you may be a budding anarchist, ready to bloom!
Local author writes first novel examining an anarchist society
Hopedale resident Joe Jarvis, 26, has written his first novel, a futuristic account of a peaceful anarchist society and those who attempt to seize power through lies, intimidation and murder.
The novel, published by Free Press Publications, is entitled Anarchy in New England. It is the culmination of years of research and writing on politics, which led Jarvis to the conclusion that the best government is actually no government at all.
“Anarchy in New England introduces people to a radical shift from standard political thought. I want to change the debate from, ‘How much government do we need?’ to ‘Do we need government?’” Jarvis said.
Jarvis, who grew up in Hopedale was always interested in politics and has volunteered on several local campaigns. Jarvis earned a bachelor’s degree in Sociology from Framingham State University and has written a daily political blog, JoeJarvis.me, since 2012. During that time, however, his political philosophy shifted from conservative to anarchist, and he searched for an engaging medium to share his views.
“I remember thinking that I wanted someone to make an anarchist TV show, just to showcase how society would function without government, without having to explain it in confusing or boring terms,” Jarvis said.
“I couldn’t really produce a TV show, but I could write, so I decided it was better to start writing a book to showcase how that sort of society would function. The conflict in the book naturally grew out of people’s first reaction to hearing about an anarchist society: what if someone tries to take over?”
Set in New England in the year 2115, Anarchy in New England introduces the reader to a thriving society that has rebuilt itself a century after economic and societal collapse. Two corrupt businessmen, whose companies are failing, are looking to return that society to an earlier form that benefits them: one in which there is a government and in which they are in charge. They employ hitmen and drug addicts, shut down communications systems and storm security companies to seize control. But a team of freedom-minded individuals, led by an investigative reporter, seek to expose the pair and stop their coup before it is too late.
While Anarchy in New England is a fictitious thriller meant for entertainment, Jarvis said he hopes it will expose people to the idea of anarchy as a viable option for society and expose the downsides of the current system.
“I want people to start seeing the difference between economic and political power,” he said. “Economic power comes from agreement, from mutual benefit, and from serving your fellow man. You can’t get his money without offering something valuable in exchange for his money. Political power comes from force. You take what you want.”
In a free market, he continued, “no one can force you to buy their product. You can disassociate with whomever you like. That is crucial, the freedom of association. Let people organize themselves, and the elements in society that you don’t like, you don’t have to deal with.”
For someone who was originally a registered Republican, Jarvis said it took him some time for his viewpoints to transition first to a libertarian mindset and then complete anarchist. The stunning, war-zone-like security he experienced trying to get near the Republican National Convention in 2012 helped add to his disillusionment about the Republican Party.
Later, a week at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire put him in touch with like-minded people who espoused the non-aggression principle, which Jarvis sums up as not initiating force against another person. Anarchy is the logical position when subscribing to this principle, Jarvis said.
“I am proud that I have made a transition across a political spectrum, because that is more than a lot of people can say. It isn’t changing just for change’s sake though, it is adopting what can be objectively classified as truth, and rejecting lies, errors and fallacies,” Jarvis said.
There are two basic reproductive strategies nature has taken, with profound implications for evolution and consciousness.
The first, the strategy used by mammals, is to produce a small number of young offspring and then carefully nurse each one to maturity. This is a risky strategy, because only a few progeny are produced in each generation, so it assumes that nurturing will even out the odds. This means that every life is cherished and carefully nurtured for a length of time.
But there is another, much older strategy that is used by much of the plant and animal kingdom, including insects, reptiles, and most other lifeforms on Earth. This involves creating a large number of eggs or seeds and then letting them fend for themselves. Without nurturing, most of the offspring never survive, so only a few hardy individuals will make it into the next generation. This means that the energy invested in each generation by the parents is nil, and reproduction relies on the law of averages to propagate the species. –The Future of the Mind, Michio Kaku
What a happy coincidence that I came across this passage in a book completely unrelated to politics. It is important to learn from, and work with nature if we want to have success as a species. The natural way of humans is to cherish each individual. Society does not function properly when elites try to organize us like ants in a colony.
An example of this is seen in economics. Keynesians think that the economy can be designed and tweaked in order to continually grow, which ends up creating bubbles—the appearance of demand where there is none, which leads to misplaced investment. But promoters of a free market understand that there is a natural order, and when human interactions are left alone, the proper fruit will grow—mutually beneficial transactions based on supply and demand. The economy is not a machine to be designed and built, it is a crop to be planted and grown.
In this same sense, society, and each individual making up that society, will be better off when the natural approach is taken. The natural approach is what gave rise to our species’ dominance. Yes, it was a risky strategy of nature to spend so much time on each individual, which resulted in arguably the best, most intelligent creatures on Earth. Not just humans, but dolphins, apes, dogs and every other mammal. This is the age of mammals, and things will go south very quickly if mammals are treated like insects or reptiles.
Learn from, and mimic what nature has created. Humans succeeded by valuing every individual. The human race is threatened by those who see some individuals as expendable, in order to benefit a minority of other individuals, in the name of the survival of the species. But nature tells us that without the survival of the individual, there will be no species.
The state of Massachusetts requires that you have your car inspected once a year. It costs about $30 and the state tells you if that protection money is enough to drive around, or if you must pay more for the privilege of using roads you already paid for.
Last year my dad spent $1,200 and dozens of hours to get his car a valid inspection sticker. The problem? A sensor was malfunctioning that made the check engine light continue to come on. He could have driven safely for the rest of the car’s life, but the state of Mass stole his time and his money in the name of safety.
But if the state is so interested in keeping us safe, you might think they would be accountable when they fail to keep us safe. In February I travelled with my sisters down to Florida in a mini-van that had literally been inspected and passed in the 48 hours prior to leaving.
Belts: check. They are safe. Fewer than 200 miles into the trip, the main belt ripped, and we cautiously drove for a couple more hours until repair shops were open. A few hours later we were on the road again.
Tires: check. They are safe. About 45 minutes after continuing our trip, the front left tire blew, for apparently no other reason than it was worn out. The snow banks were so immense that we were only a foot off the highway in the breakdown lane, and so we called AAA rather than risk our lives trying to fix it. We waited for over an hour as tractor trailers blew by just feet from our vehicle, where one twitch of the trucker’s arm would have killed us all.
Even worse than “keeping us safe” by force, is stealing our money under the pretense of keeping us safe. The state lulls us into a false sense of security by pretending they are taking care of things which they are absolutely not. It happens with security, education, and help to the poor; but it also happens with safety inspections, whether in a restaurant, or on our vehicles.
If the state has taken on the responsibility to keep us safe, why are they not accountable when they fail to do so? In essence, we paid the state $30 to make sure our car was safe to drive. So when they said it was safe, yet it was not safe, don’t they owe us something for their failure? This reveals that like so much else, state vehicle inspections are simply a racket to steal more money.
Now suppose there was a business where we could voluntarily have our vehicles inspected for $30 dollars, and if they pass it is like insurance against something going wrong. Then we would be paid based on the failure of the mechanics to find the problems with the belt and the tires. The state is not accountable however. If I made a big deal out of this, the state might end up shutting down the shop that inspected the vehicle, even though the shop probably thought they were being nice and saving us more money in tires, or on addressing a rejection sticker.
In reality, there wasn’t much indication that the belt would go, though we should have looked at the tires and realized they needed to be replaced. It is our personal responsibility to make sure we are safe. We purchase things like AAA as insurance for emergencies; we don’t need the state to get involved.
All the state does is two things: one, take our money, which makes it harder for us to afford to look after ourselves. Two, convince us not to worry about certain things “because the state is taking care of it”, when in reality, we should be looking after those things ourselves.
One town in Texas decided not to renew it’s contract with the local constables. Instead they hired a private policing company to patrol their streets. The result: it cost less and crime dropped.
And it was not just some statistically insignificant drop in crime: there has been an overall 61% drop in crime since the private police took over 20 months ago. The town of Sharpstown is not tiny either; it is home to 66,000 residents, located just outside of Houston. The new police force puts more officers out on patrol, and costs the city $200,000 fewer each year than the constables cost.
This just shows what a simple profit incentive can accomplish. Instead of doing the same old thing, SEAL, the private police force, uses targeted patrols for high crime area, and keeps the same officer in a particular neighborhood, instead of randomly sending patrols zig-zagging all over the place.
“Law enforcement officers are trained to be reactive. They’re out there to run calls, they’re running one call to another, so they’re reacting to something that’s already happened. Private security, the way that we train our guys, is more proactive, meaning that we’re in the community proactively patrolling to prevent those crimes.”
Said James Alexander, the director of SEAL operations.
One town isn’t hard proof of anything, but it is certainly an indication that private police can do just as good, if not better than, a public police force. And this example is not purely private either: the police were still hired with public funds. I would like to see what happens when people are left to their own devices to shop around for protection, as long as they are rebated the money previously taken by force to pay for public police.