A Rebuttal to “Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government”

I find it rather fun to debunk articles about why anarchists are wrong. Mostly, this is because the people writing them are generally in favor of limited government, yet use all of the tactics of their big government counterparts when arguing against voluntaryism. This article called Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government, by Harry Binswanger was a slightly better critique of anarchism compared to Austin Petersen’s, but essentially makes the same mistake of failing to differentiate between defensive force, and offensive force.

The anarchists object to the very idea of a monopoly on force. That only shows that they cannot grasp what force is. Force is monopoly. To use force is to attempt to monopolize. The cop or the gunman says: “We’ll do it my way, not your way–or else.” There is no such thing as force that allows dissenters to go their own way.

If a man wants to have sex with a woman who doesn’t want it, only one of them can have their way. It’s either “Back off” or rape. Either way, it’s a monopoly.

Does he not realize that this argument says rape need only be deemed legal and the rapist is in the right? Anarchists recognize the aggressor as always wrong. Anarchists understand that force is a meaningless word in the way that he uses it, because he fails to differentiate between types of force. Defending against rape is not monopolizing force, it is monopolizing your body. And monopolizing your own body is where all rights stem from.

You are your own property, and therefore philosophically have total autonomy. He speaks of a “proper government”, which is mythical, unless you count the individual as a government of one. The only thing you have the right to monopolize is your own body, and the property that stems from the right of self ownership (acquired by trade, or original appropriation mixed with labor). This highlights the difference between the force used in rape, and the force used in defense of rape.

Monopolizing force in an attempt to rape would not be “proper government” (defined as a government that does not violate any rights) because it seeks to monopolize more than your own body (and your property which stems from self ownership). Monopolizing force to defend against rape would indeed be “proper government” because you are only monopolizing your own body, and demanding that no other (government or individual) break your monopoly on self ownership.

He really digs his own grave on this point, since all government does is in fact “rape”, by failing to recognizing autonomous individuals who own themselves, and therefore monopolize their own body. Government says it has partial ownership of you, and the proof is that they can force you to do things you do not want to do. And in this sense, he makes the same argument as Petersen: they both believe that just by wielding force, whether defensive or offensive, you are a government. But practically no one agrees with their definition of government.

Governments monopolize regardless of rights, and individuals acting in self defense are monopolizing only in accordance to their rights. If a government only operated without violating others’ rights, this means they would not forcefully exclude a competitor, and therefore would not be a government, but a competing business to fulfill a market demand.

And after all of the effort to show how force will be monopolized no matter what, Binswanger then argues that we need government force in order to protect us from force from others. But he never explains why the government’s force is better than those it protects you from. In essence he admits that there is no difference between “the cop or the gunman,” then arbitrarily chooses the cop’s force over the gunman’s. Binswanger would therefor not necessarily prefer the woman’s monopoly on force to the rapists: first he must check with the government to see which will be allowed under their monopoly.

He then goes on to praise the non-existent “American system” of government, which even in its perfect form violates the individual’s right to self ownership, and therefore does not fit the definition of a “proper government”.

The genius of the American system is that it limited government, reining it in by a Constitution, with checks and balances and the provision that no law can be passed unless it is “necessary and proper” to the government’s sole purpose: to protect individual rights–to protect them against their violation by physical force.

Tragically, the original American theory of government was breached, shelved, trashed long ago. But that’s another story.

No, it is not another story, it is very much a part of this story. What is so genius about a system that could not maintain itself? How was it reigned in by a Constitution, if he admits that it was “shelved and trashed long ago”? As Lysander Spooner said, the Constitution either allowed such a system as we have, or failed to prevent it.

Never has a government existed whose sole purpose was and stayed to protect individual rights, let alone doing so funded through voluntary means! So Binswanger can keep arguing for that type of government, but without saying how to get or keep it, what good does the argument do? I could use this same argument for a monarchy or dictatorship, and just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to always have a benevolent dictator in power.

Anarchy on the other hand, tells you how it will remain free: through market decisions. If the market dictates that force be used not only in self defense, we may end up right back where we are now. But that is a less likely scenario based on everything we know about markets and competition–competition delivers a better product for cheaper. It also speaks volumes that we are currently living in the worst case scenario for how anarchy would turn out: violent monopolization of force without accordance to individual rights stemming from self ownership.

But this last point, Binswanger would argue, is moot, because protection is not production, so it is therefore not an economic service which can be provided by the market.

However protection is creating a proper environment for economic transactions, just like vacuuming the floor at a shop creates a proper environment: vacuuming is not production, but it allows the store to be more productive by appealing to customers who want to shop in a clean store. A guard does not produce whatever you are selling, he allows you to be more productive by creating an environment where people feel safe shopping, working, or living.

The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes “competitors.” It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.

“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control–i.e., under objectively defined laws.” (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

There can be only one supreme law of the land and only one government to enforce it. (State and local governments are necessarily subordinate to the federal government.)

Yet despite his arguments, governments currently use force subjectively! And how can he claim competition for retaliatory force would be more subjective than monopolization on retaliatory force? What evidence does Binswanger have to show that government can more effectively objectively define laws than competing firms? None! In fact an examination of every government’s laws on earth will yield no such objectivity, especially when their aggressive actions are examined next to their laws. Read the Constitution for proof, and tell me if you think our government is objective in their enforcement.

Vigilantes, lynch mobs and terrorists would all be subject to further retaliation when they violate others’ rights. Not always, but more often than in government, will objective laws come from companies who wish to turn profits, because conflict is costly, and not conducive to the bottom line. Competing entities are not simply competing in force, but in productivity. They must bring people to justice in order to serve their customers, but not invite conflict by going beyond the objective, previously defined contracts they agree to fulfill. In other words, the competing wielders of force have all the incentives to lay out their “laws” and stick to them, while government has no such incentive.

Binswanger does not say what land area a government may cover, so we can assume that governments could be as small as we want, except that he says local and state governments are “necessarily subordinate to federal government” (despite arguing earlier in favor of the Constitution which subordinated the federal government to state governments). But why does a law of the land have to be subject to arbitrary borders? I might assume he would support one world government, because then the ultimate “agreement” across the board would be had over what an individual can and cannot do.

He claims the mythical government that he wants will not get its money through force, but voluntarily, and only wield force in a retaliatory manner. So the monopoly on law is what he really wants the government to have. Throw in the possibility of different courts defining different segments of law, or laws in different regions. The laws would depend on the people who voluntary patronize such firms for protection, while agreeing that they will not violate the laws they are protected with, and voila, we have an anarchist society.

People, consumers, would define the laws by patronizing competing agencies of law–security companies, third party arbiters, crime insurance companies, etc. Desire for profits will keep these competing firms from breaching contracts or waging wars. Governments on the other hand, routinely wage wars when they cannot agree with other governments.

The anarchist idea of putting law on “the market” cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

An absurd analogy! In order to play a game at all, it must first be defined! This is a paradox; how can there be a winner if it takes a winner to define what it means to be a winner?! How can a game be won, if there is no game until it is won?

Imagine someone saying, “We’re going to play a game. Okay, I win; now I will tell you what the rules are. The rules are, I win.” That sounds like a government to me.

But let’s follow the baseball example. Two people or companies engaging in free trade would be the baseball teams, and they must both agree on the terms of the game before playing with each other. If they never agree, they never play!

If they agree on the rules, they then both agree on a third party to whom’s authority they will voluntarily submit, in order to engage in the game–the economic transaction–because they both want to play, they both see some benefit in the game. So both teams hire an umpire to call the shots based on rules that both teams agreed to, not that the umpire simply makes up.

Again, it is hilariously cringe-worthy that Binswanger would use an example of a baseball game, that could be compared perfectly to an anarchist scenario. Both teams agree on the end that they want: to play a game. They create law by defining the terms of the game. They know the umpire won’t always make the calls they want, but they also know the game essentially would be chaos–not anarchy–without the third party making the calls. Its a win win, even for the loser, who will have the chance to play other games, since other teams know they play fair.

The market was created by the two teams. The two will not be playing the same game, or in the same stadium, unless they first agree on the rules.

Binswanger also forgets that economics is not a zero-sum game. There is no outright winner in economics, and there is only a loser when the business shuts its doors. Otherwise, the business will stay open to competition. The team may lose one game, and win the next one; that is it may lose one customer, and gain the next one, based on how well it plays the game. But the teams it engages with are always on the same page, or they would not be engaging.

This guy might do better writing for the Onion. Look at these two lines, where he tells us why government functions cannot be accomplished through competition:

Actual competition is a peaceful rivalry to gain dollars–dollars paid voluntarily in uncoerced trade.

Governments are necessary–because we need to be secure from force initiated by criminals, terrorists, and foreign invaders.

Peaceful competition cannot exist without violent force. Allowing violent force to be used against you is the only way to prevent violent force from being used against you. Peaceful competition is the ideal, therefore we must accept violent force to make sure all competition is peaceful. He should be embarrassed that he wrote these two sentences in the same article, let alone right next to each other.

Government forcing you to fund and use their services is coerced trade! A voluntary trade would be hiring a firm who agrees to protect you from criminals, terrorists, and foreign invaders. And you would hire the best firm, not the one that says it will cage you if you refuse to engage, as the current government does.

Binswanger has already said that the only moral use of force is to defend rights, yet even when governments have defended some of these rights, they do so by first violating them in order to gain their funding through violent theft via taxation. It is a contradiction of objective morality, unless he somehow thinks paradoxically that an immoral act is required to stop other immoral acts.

The attempt to invoke individual rights to justify “competing” with the government collapses at the first attempt to concretize what it would mean in reality. Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

First of all, whose rights have been violated? Men walking down the street with guns is not an infringement on any rights. On the other hand, armed police officers walking down the street, paid and armed through theft of the citizens wages, is itself an immoral act (according to his own definition) due to the rights violated to make it possible. Of course the police are morally required to withdraw.

But say it was just two gangs of gun toters: the immoral party would be the first one to fire a shot unprovoked. This isn’t hard: the people in the wrong are the ones who initiate force, who violate others’ rights, who infringe on the self ownership of others, who seek to break the monopoly that the individual inherently has over himself.

And anarchists think a free market for the services government provides would more often hold the wrongdoers accountable, based on the fact that the free market more often serves the consumers’ demands in every area in which the government doesn’t interfere.

Anarchy is no guarantee that a man’s rights will not be violated. Government is a guarantee that a man’s rights will be violated.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by “competing” force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

He’s got it all backwards! The only natural law, that offensive force is barred. If you allow government to wield the force, then force has not been barred, and it is not a free market, which is presupposed for competition!

The question is, what is the most effective way of getting to a truly free market? Recognizing all force as immoral would be a good place to start, as opposed to giving government the magic power of abracadabra, and they are somehow not guilty of an immoral act.

If you can disassociate, and refuse to do business with someone, that is a free market. Government, which forces you into their marketplace, does not create a free market.

Competing force wielders would be more constrained by the market than monopoly force wielders, thus being more likely to lead to a freer and freer market, until economic incentives dictate the only rule that ever needed to exist: do not initiate force against others.

And at that point there will be 7 billion “proper governments” on earth called sovereign individuals.

You Don’t Always Need to Know How It Works, to Know It Works

This was shared by the Facebook page Emancipated Human:

Although I can talk at length as to how a Voluntary or Stateless society may function, the reality is that this is fundamentally irrelevant to the idea of true freedom. Do you know exactly how your laptop works? Do you know exactly how your cell phone works? Do you know exactly how Skype works? Do you know exactly how the Internet works? Do you know exactly how your e-mail account transmits an e-mail? Do you know exactly how your car works?

The reality is many of us live in complete ignorance of how all of these things work and yet we are still comfortable to buy them from people who know how they work. Likewise it is similarly unnecessary to know how society may be “structured” in the absence of the coercive monopoly on initiated aggression known as “government”.

My desire to be free has absolutely nothing to do with how the roads will be built, who will feed the poor, who will protect us from foreign invaders, who will protect us from thieves, rapists, and murderers, who will take care of the sick, who will look after the elderly, and who will educate our children.

Aside from the erroneous assumption that “government” is adequately doing these things already is the fact that theft, assault, rape, and murder on a colossal scale is occurring today even amidst such a swollen monstrosity as the United States “government”.

Our desire to protect ourselves from thieves, liars, and murderers has given us the insane belief that we will be protected from them if we put other thieves, liars, and murderers into power. Sane people do not seek to subjugate or rule their neighbor, let alone their town, county, city, state, or country. It is not only that power corrupts but that it attracts the corruptible and vile among us. The lust for power is more addictive than cocaine or heroin can ever be. Vacate the State! – DC

With economic knowledge of the free market, we can be sure that all those things government monopolizes and does horribly (keeping you safe, roads, helping the poor) would be done better. That doesn’t mean I have to know exactly how it would function, just as I don’t know exactly how everything in the grocery store ends up on the shelf every time I go in to buy it. But it does.

When things are in demand, and people are free to voluntarily supply those demands, and others can voluntarily accept the service or goods offered for the price, there is nothing else to worry about! Keeping an eye on businesses from which you can simply remove your funding voluntarily will produce much better results than forcing everyone to pay for things they may disagree with, not want, or not use.

But it is always still worth questioning how these things might happen in the absence of a coercive violent monopoly.

How might the roads be built?

How might populations be defended from invasion?

What would happen to the poor?

The case for improvement, even if it is not heaven on earth.

Government is Horrible at Divvying Resources

Resources are limited, this is true. Even when creating wealth, such as growing a garden, it requires the resources of land, water, and sun. It does not follow, however, that the state is necessary to divvy up these resources appropriately. To put it another way, there is no evidence to suggest force is the best way to decide where resources will go.

I bring this up because I’ve heard people say we need a government because land, water, oil, etc. are all to some degree scarce resources, meaning they are limited. But why on earth would anyone think the government will be a proper arbiter or these resources?


Just look at oil. This is a scarce resource, that many people want and need for industry. Are the governments of the world doing a good job splitting that resource? No, they spend more money fighting wars over oil than the actual oil is worth, and that is before we even place a value on human life lost! The only reason governments can spend more wealth obtaining a resource than it is worth, is because the wealth they spend is forcefully taken by them in the form of taxes!

[Fun Fact: there is enough habitable land on Earth for every person alive to own over two acres.]

A company that needs to turn a profit on the other hand, could not spend more obtaining the resource than it is worth. They cannot spend $1 billion mining gold if the amount of gold they mine can only be sold for half a billion dollars. But governments spend far more on wars to obtain land and oil than the total amount of production that said land or oil could sustain.

So if no one was allowed to rob us, including government, then these issues would have to be solved in a mutually beneficial way. In order to obtain oil, we would have to pay the price asked, or go elsewhere. Elsewhere would include solar, wind, hydro, and other forms of creating electricity. The government has helped keep us in the stone age of fossil fuel because they rob us to obtain the oil, then rob us to subsidize the oil, and keep the shelf price of it low enough so that we don’t bother seriously looking into alternative fuels.

But if we were not robbed by the government, that wealth would stay in our hands, and we would be able to spend that wealth in peaceful ways that create more wealth. Instead, government spends it on murder and destruction.

And somehow people still think government is the best arbiter of limited resources? They just don’t know any better alternatives. That is why they should read my fiction novel Anarchy in New England, in order to explore a world where coercion is never okay, and mutual benefit has monumentally raised the standard of living.

Free Market Mirrors Natural Interaction

Humans got along quite well without government for a long time. When tribes and extended families grouped themselves together, natural hierarchies may have formed, but this was less by force and more by merit. The desire of an individual to survive made most voluntarily accept the given social structure.

You could always leave the tribe, and attempt to get along by yourself in the wilderness. This probably never happened because it meant almost certain death. They needed the tribe. In contrast, today people will criticize those who call for government reform: “Then move to another country!” That is telling though. We cannot simply move into the wilderness to survive or not, we must “choose” another master.

And this is not like choosing another tribe: there is nowhere for a tribe to go either. We must fit ourselves into the bounds of a large country, run by a government, using force. It does not become about surviving by producing everything we need to live: it also includes part time slave labour for a master we cannot choose.

Now, people use their cell phones to denounce the free market. Politicians fly with jet fuel to criticize polluters. People act as if those who gained medical skills owe their service to others, with or without proper reward. See, it was so much clearer when there was the tribe, and the wilderness. If you denounce the tribe, you live in the wilderness, unless you can get another tribe to voluntarily accept you.

Now keep in mind that I am comparing tribes to a free market, not a government. Governments gain their power by force, while free market businesses gain their power by serving needs. It seems to me that a tribal leader needed the support of his subordinates in order to have power, just as a CEO needs his employees to comply with his demands for the business to succeed. But the employees have a chance to leave the company for something better.

We have no such opportunity to escape all government subordination. Certainly some tribes existed with more force than others, especially as they got bigger and became more like chiefdoms, and less like family groups. But the natural way that humans survived for long enough to increase in numbers, was by being liked and needed by the tribe, and that is what naturally mirrors the free market.

When social interactions define your standing in a solitary and independent community, it pays to be liked. Even social anxiety of teenagers in this day and age is probably linked to the evolutionary desire to be part of the group, because being rejected by the group meant death. It is a primal fear to not be liked. So in nature, people would strive to become “successful” by being well liked by the group. They give value to the group, and the group in turn contributes value to the individual.

Trade seems to be one of the most basic methods of interaction, and easiest when it comes to the specialization of skills. If you trade something that comes easy to you for something in return that comes easy to them, you both feel like you made out on the deal: it is a mutually beneficial transaction. There was no force involved, you just need to have or create something valuable, and be easy to work with. And this is also a snapshot of organic relationships at the family level: a breadwinner, and a homemaker.

So the whole problem with the world is that our lives are no longer organic: they are controlled and designed and it is in opposition to nature. You don’t have to be liked to do well in the group, you can do well through violence, theft, and fear mongering. But when we see the free market (or a free-ish market) poke it’s head through the rubble, we see how good verses bad people are dealt with naturally.

Just recently I wrote about the auto-dealer that landed in hot water for treating a pizza delivery man poorly. Would you go to a restaurant or bar where the staff or owner was rude to you, or constantly overcharged customers? Would you drive on a private road that damaged your vehicle with potholes, if there was another option available?

The natural order of life is that the largest gains are made through mutual benefit. Only by voluntarily serving others needs can you expect others to voluntarily serve you. The more liked you are, the more customers you get, and the more businesses want to interact with you. The better your product is, the more people enjoy trading with you. The friendlier you are, or the better the customer service, the more comfortable people feel about interacting with you.

We need our society to return to an organic order of life. The only way we can do that, is by removing incentives and disincentives that include force. Some people can survive and thrive today while nobody likes them, because they give no reason to like them. They use force when they should be offering something. They create division while they should create cohesion. When we allow some people to organize society against nature, we get all the ills that we see in society today.

If we could just step back and let nature take its course, we would see all the beauty nature has in store for the human race.

Vigilant Vote is Now JoeJarvis.me

Don’t worry, nothing will be any different, except for the title of the blog. There might be some trouble with old links that I am working to update (but it if you are brought to blog.vigilantvote.com/whatever you could just replace “blog.vigilantvote.com” with “joejarvis.me” and it should work). Anyway I will still be posting a few times a week about politics, society, and peacefully resisting state coercion.

I picked the name Vigilant Vote when I still thought voting was the best way to change society for the better, and that all we had to do to vote for the right person was to be vigilant over government. But I realized over time (assisted by blogging, reading, researching and writing almost everyday) people who favor slightly less coercion (or coercion for different ends) will not improve our society.

While civilization is built on a foundation that says coercion is okay as long as it is labelled government, we will not significantly improve society for the long run. I wrote a post redefining the purpose and mission of Vigilant Vote, describing how vigilance is something we will always need. Even without government we will always need to be vigilant over business. Then with the knowledge from that vigilance, we can “vote” or spend properly.

But right now there are no incentives to make the government work for us, and “democracy” has long proven to simply allow the majority to force its will on the minority. In a world of free markets however, competition will lead to better business, in a similar way that competition between states for a long time led to better governments. But as the federal government gained power and the states lost control, this trend reversed and improvement waned.

Now I fear we are reaching a point where government will handicap further advancement of society, as it undoubtedly already has by wasting the products of American labor in myriad ways.

So stay tuned, and please share, like, and comment! Together we can promote of true liberty, and free people from the unjust force of the state.

Listen to “Under the Gun” with Guest, Joe Jarvis (Me)

We criticize the government. We call out the conservatives. We debunk the liberals. We talk real freedom, true liberty, and why we can be organized as humanity without using force to do it.

We discuss how a liberal tried to use The Hunger Games as an example of where no government would lead… to an oppressive government?

We talk about how government takes our money and gives it to corporations, yet statist’s solution is for the government to regulate the corporation! (Versus eliminating the entity which robs you at the request of the corporation, and uses your own money to do it!)

Discussion with Statist Highlights Opposing Views on the Power of the Individual

This is a discussion I had with a vehement statist on Facebook. I shared it here in its entirety, adding a little commentary along the way. I was happy to have this discussion since it stayed on point, and no one was too rude. Most people, I have found, won’t engage if you disagree with them (except with insults), so this was a unique perspective to get.

Interestingly enough, the liberal engaged me on Facebook much more than the conservative who was posting pro-torture memes and articles (the conservative did not respond to my questions of whether stooping to the low of torture would make the US safer, or if using medieval means can justify the ends). It makes me think, “Am I the only one who feels like a conservative when arguing with liberals, and a liberal when arguing with conservatives?”

Anyway I commented on an article the liberal statist shared. He was angry (and rightfully so) that the FDA instituted a lifetime ban on gays donating blood. I already knew the FDA was as terrible as any other federal bureaucracy, so I thought I might take the opportunity to point that out. I’m Joe Jarvis for anyone unaware.



The sarcastic person obscured with red was not the same person (represented with blue) who continued to engage me politely for the rest of the discussion. I found it interesting that despite a sweeping negative decision by the FDA, Mr. Red would still prefer the government to institute across the board decisions, instead of allowing individuals control over their own experiences.

The philosophy seems to be that individuals are weak and powerless, too stupid or at least too oppressed (not by the government though) to educate themselves or figure our how to get quality healthcare. And that individuals are too greedy to help their fellow man (by patronizing charitable businesses) unless they are forced to by the government. (The contradiction is that the government is made up of people, so if it is the case that people are greedy, so will the government be greedy).


If we don’t give the government more power to control education and healthcare, we will end up living in Panem, controlled by an oppressive government who denies education and healthcare to the poor? Woah that made me dizzy. How is it that taking power from the government and giving it to the individual will bring us closer to the distopian fascist state depicted in The Hunger Games? Even Katniss educated herself (with the help of her father in earlier life) to hunt and provide for the family. And Katniss’s mother educates Prim on natural medicine. In the end, the education these girls obtained on their own, despite the government’s obstruction, helped to free them from the oppression of Panem.

Also, how is people “intelligently elect[ing] their leaders” working out? And does that not suggest those in power will design education so as to remain in power?


I assumed Mr. Green was talking about the original post? Notice that Mr. Blue does not defend or acknowledge the subsidies, grants, and bailouts, even though he made reference to cheap unhealthy food. He does not respond to my assertion that the government caused these problems, and thus should not be trusted to solve them. Instead he shows that he believes workers to be like slaves, bringing back the helpless individual philosophy.

And has he not noticed that public police forces are currently murdering the poor? As always, all the evils created by government are blamed on the free market. The dire predictions about an unrestrained market are already unfolding in a controlled market, with the government carrying out the worst violations.

He believes those who willingly work for a company in exchange for pay are more like slaves than a tax payer, who has some percentage of what he earns or creates taken by force. Supposedly what the government takes will be returned (education, healthcare, roads), yet it is not an agreement. I cannot choose to forgo the “benefits” of government and not pay my taxes. I can do exactly that in regards to a company’s services and products.


Somehow a government has more incentive to educate the citizens than an individual has to become educated? Again, people are not helpless, especially in a world with the internet, where it is easy to pursue your own education. And history tells us governments have an incentive to create a population of sheep (Hitler youth, Soviet propaganda, suppression in China, the lists goes on and on). Currently our government sees innovators as more of a threat to their power structure than a boon to America’s position in the world (look at the regulatory trouble Tesla is having selling their efficient cars direct to the consumer, while the bailed out company GM is having market trouble with their electric cars).

Mr. Blue stated that it is better to have an educated and healthy society, but never argues how the government will do this. As it stands, the government is failing on both accounts. So he points to the government as a means to achieve an end, yet does not explain why that end has not been achieved, nor how it will be achieved moving forward. In fact the decline in quality American education since the federal Department of Education was created would suggest the government cannot improve education, or at least has not in the modern era.



I thought perhaps I’d get a “like” as a gesture of good will on my polite departure. Perhaps he did not enjoy the discussion as much as I did.

High tech companies benefit from educated workers, and benefit from not being racist or classist (bigger pool of workers to choose from, and market pressure to not be racist assholes). Public schools disadvantage the same people he claims private schooling would disadvantage. Parents are most to credit for any well educated children in today’s society. In a freed market, companies would need to work harder to attract employees, and thus offer more: education, healthcare, charity.

All said and done, it seems the worst case scenario for getting government out of the market would be… ending up exactly where we are now. And in reality, most societal ills that currently exist, yet are blamed on a free market (which doesn’t currently exist) are caused by the government, and their unbridled force.

Should I Trust The Government?

20141210_101127How is this even a question anymore? Why do people still jump to support their slave masters, and make excuses for every abuse we suffer as inferior citizens to the political class?

Since the first NSA spying revelations came to light, the government has repeatedly changed the story, only to be caught lying with the next revelations. We have a Nobel Peace Prize winning President who’s drones have bombed wedding parties in a country we are not even at war with. America has police officers armed to the teeth with military weapons, who kill more innocent Americans per year than terrorists. All the while these elitists don’t trust us with guns, they call peaceful groups terrorists, and every injustice is carried out with our money, in a system where theft is legitimate if you call it taxes instead of extortion.

America puts people in jail for drug crimes without a victim, yet those who teamed up with the government to steal our tax dollars for their corporations are free. America puts away organic farmers and raw milk salesmen 1,000 times more aggressively than it prosecutes murderous cops, and corrupt congressmen.

Insider trading is legal for members of Congress! But If I want to start my own business, I better not conceal from the IRS anything that I have earned. Better yet, I should not speak out publicly about politics if I don’t want to be audited.

And now we see the CIA torture report, which seems to reveal who the true terrorists are. Water boarding to the point of almost drowning in a salt pit dungeon where they claimed nothing of the sort ever happened. Shoving foreign objects and substances up rectums because it prevented terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the fury and volume of exploded metal that would shower the middle east if American marines were routinely treated in such a way? Then it would be torture, but sitting in the courtyard of the evil empire makes people here claim these are necessary tactics. These tactics do work out for some: namely the people in government who want perpetual war. You see, when the sheeple give the government more power, and more money in times of war, you can expect a government that is perpetually at war.

And how far do you have to go back to when the U.S. government quite literally enslaved young men, and sent them off to die for their homeland? The draft? Are you kidding me? How the hell did anyone put up with this?! And they criticize our generation! Their brothers, fathers, sons, cousins, and friends were taken at the point of a gun, and thrust toward the “enemy” in Vietnam in countless waves to die. Almost 18,000 of those 650,000 slaves, forced into a mercenary army, died while slaves to this country.

That was all legal. How can people support laws without questioning whether they are just? How has it gotten to the point that almost 70 years after the Nuremberg trials, men and women in our government are repeating the phrase used by Nazi’s, with success no less: “I was just following orders”. We aren’t supposed to get mad at the SWAT members who kill innocent 7 year old girls in their bed when the wrong house is raided. They were just following orders.


It was about 75 years ago that this very government violated the rights of anyone with Japanese ancestry, and put them in concentration camps! There are people alive today that were sent there by this very government! How can anyone fathom trusting a single action of the government, with so much as an ounce of their being?! Stockholm syndrome does not begin to express the blind and insane devotion many have to such a sociopathic abusive “Motherland”.

This government makes no distinction between protesters and rioters, except when the protesters are gassed and pepper sprayed. This government threatens more legal action against those who would protect their private property, than those looting it. A free market is conflated with a government regulated market: the non-existent former is blamed for all the problems caused by the latter.

It was once legal to own slaves, illegal to drink alcohol, legal to subjugate women, illegal to own gold. Laws are meaningless. Right and wrong is meaningful. Yet many are more concerned with obeying the laws than protecting actual victims. 80,000 dangerous SWAT raids a year for drugs, when the public was assured 30 years ago the teams would only be used for hostage situations. We are now being told that military tanks going to local police will only be used against terrorists, and in hostage situations. Last time they used a bearcat in a hostage situation, the hostage was killed.


But with all the fear, doom and gloom, God forbid I want to own a big gun myself! It is not hard to figure these people out, they count on blind obedience. If they cared about our safety, they would not try to stop us from obtaining weapons, and protecting ourselves against criminals with them. Edward Snowden aided the American people with revelations about how corrupt our government is, and they charged him with aiding the enemy. So then who is the enemy?

And still people think they can bring about peace and equality through government action. People think a system agressive by nature, hierarchical by design could bring about peace and equality. Others hate everything the government does, until it comes to their foot soldiers, the only ones who could actually carry out the oppression ordered down by the elites. The smartest thing politicians ever did to secure their own power was to splinter fascism into the two party system, to keep the peasants perpetually arguing about the “differences”. One idolizes the welfare nanny state, one worships the military police state.

Should you trust the government? Never has the answer to a question been so obviously: No, Never. Don’t sit there and pretend I’m paranoid. Don’t complacently think anything would be different now than it has been for the past 100 years, when it comes to the intentions and actions of the government.

You know, we all know, what we’ll get if we trust the government. You know exactly what you will get, because it will be exactly what everyone who has ever trusted the government has got.

Government: I don’t think they do what you think they do…

With such colossal and aggressive government, it can be quite difficult to analyze all of the effects it has on private life, the economy, crime, and essentially every aspect of civilian life. If you go by the government’s own record, you might think everything good that happens is due to government, and everything bad that happens is because of one government detractor or another: drug cartels, terrorists, survivalists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims—there have been many scapegoats throughout history. But when you understand market forces, you can begin to tease apart what influence the government has had on our society.

Obviously, the government creates the narrative, so they will naturally place themselves as the constant savior, while any of their critics will be the perpetual villain. It is obvious to most people that this is not always the case, but indeed I firmly believe it to never be the case. Right off the bat is the fact that government lies. Everyone knows it, starting right from the fact that they claim everything they do is beneficial when we all (yes, EVERYONE) knows that is not true.

Republicans know that the Democratic politicians lie, and Republicans know that the Democratic appointees lie. The Fascists blamed the Socialists, the Monarchs blamed the Communists, and pretty much everyone blamed the Jews. If you are anti-war you know the government lies about terrorists. If you are anti-welfare you know the government lies about poverty. If you laissez-faire you know the government lies about the economy, and if you are Keynesian you know the government lies about capitalism.

The next big step is realizing practically everything the government says is a lie, and practically everything it does serves an ulterior motive. It is not the government that keeps us safe, it is not the government that keeps us fed, it is not the government that educates us, it is not the government who houses us, and it is most certainly not the government that organizes society.
inigoIn fact, most disorder in society is a result of the government’s attempt to implement their vision of an organized society. And there is nothing magic about government versus industry; you need only to consider what each actually is at its core. The government cannot exist without coercion, or we would not call it a government. Monopolizing the initiation of force is a defining characteristic of government; they allow themselves, but supposedly no one else (besides their cronies), to aggress upon people, not just in retaliation, but to fund everything they do. They use this aggression anywhere within their arbitrarily defined borders without typical consequences that anyone else could expect from attacking someone, or being aggressive.

Industry on the other hand, when not working in tandem with government, is constrained by market responses, as in, people will not put up with being aggressed upon. The government can come to my house with guns and force me to pay them protection money. A business must attract me to their product or service in order to get my money. I must obey the government or face jail or death. With business, I must agree to the price and they the product (a mutually beneficial transaction), and if no agreement is found, we will simply go our separate ways.

Some people think that without government, businesses would be able to come to your house and demand money. But there is nothing to back this up. In fact, economic principles refute this. Just like the threat of mutual destruction keeps wolves from invading other wolves’ territory, so would businesses seek to avoid costly confrontation, in order to continue to make a profit.

This makes even more sense when you consider that various businesses would offer services (with profit as their incentive) to protect individuals from any number of criminals, including cartels. A cartel is essentially a business that begins to use government tactics to fund their enterprise (government tactics being forcing “customers” to pay them money, like taxes or mafia style “protection”). Then any aggressive company would be picking on someone their own size (another company), and thus could expect at least the ruin of their business, and probably death or confinement, if they initiate force against innocent people.

The only reason this would happen is if the market (AKA people who earn and spend money) places no value on peace. I like peace, do you like peace? Yeah even people who don’t like peace generally have to pretend they do. Companies can currently make money off war because the government steals our money and gives it to the military industrial complex. If the companies had to earn the money, war would be avoided at all costs to maintain profits, attract customers, attract employees, and for management to stay alive and not in a cage.

I Put Up With the Murder of Hundreds of Millions of Innocent Human Beings, and All I got Was This Lousy Road

So you see, the mechanisms exist in a free market to offer all the benefits of organized society, without the detriments of accepting government force as okay. Plus, there would be a clear line: initiation of force is never okay, even if an organization calls themselves a government.

This would prevent prosecution for victimless crimes, since without a victim, who would pay for the prosecution? It would also stop genocides carried out by governments, as has happened over the past century in Cambodia, Indonesia, Turkey, Germany, Russia, China, Darfur, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Rwanda, Iraq, and North Korea to name a few. Currently, governments can do any number of terrible things under the guise of helping people, the greater good, or simply having enough guns and soldiers to not require an excuse for their aggression.

Now one might think with such an insanely lopsided record of governments carrying out evil against all sorts of innocent and peaceful people, that the burden of proof would rest on government as to the benefits it creates. It seems they would have to do a lot of good in order to make up for the murder, torture, and imprisonment of at very least half a billion innocent people, in only 100 years. But the government gets to write the narrative. Building roads is necessary, so just ignore the vast atrocities. And also don’t give it much thought, because you will realize you didn’t need government to build the roads after all. And you don’t need the government to keep you safe either—they are a bigger threat to your safety than the people they “protect” you from.

If it can all be summed up in one sentence, here it is. People must currently seek permission from government to exist, where as in a free market with no government, businesses would require permission from people to exist.

And that is why a free market would create a better society than the government has. Stay tuned, because the government could not create such a false narrative, without the tools to mold the population to their liking: public education.

Wow, Some People Really Don’t Get libertarians

I read three hit pieces on libertarianism the other day, which was interesting. It was interesting because it made me realize how little these publications care about consistency. The authors did not get the difference between what the philosophy would “allow” for, and what would actually happen. They do not understand that believing a free market will sort everything out does not preclude the possibility of businesses doing bad things, it simply allows mechanisms other than force to define the outcome. They don’t get that men with guns forcing us to do what is “right”, is worse than the possibility that people will do something “wrong”, albeit, something that does not initiate force on another person.

So the authors are all hating on Uber (the unregulated cab service) because of unethical business practices towards competitors. “See, it’s not a free market if they are trying to dishonestly disadvantage their competitors”. Uhh… no, it would still be a free market. It is the responsibility of the consumer to choose what business tactics they will put up with; that’s what a free market means. A business can do anything that does not initiate force, and the consumers can choose which businesses to keep alive. Does this mean it is possible for assholes to own successful businesses? Yep.

But what a non-libertarian philosophy says is, if 51% of people agree, we can use force to outlaw being an asshole, or get rid of a business we have convinced 51% of the population is mean…even if they aren’t really. Libertarians say, we don’t have to use force, as long as Uber didn’t use force. You don’t like what they do? Don’t buy from them, and support the other guy. Boycott, and raise awareness about how bad the company is. Don’t resort to violence to force a company or person to “be nice”, unless they are aggressing on someone else.

Apparently Uber employees were calling up a rival taxi service, then canceling, causing delays for real customers. I don’t like that they did that, it seems dishonest. But there are ways to fight back without abandoning free interaction, throwing your hands up and being like, “oh, damn, I guess we need thugs with guns to make sure businesses play nice”.

The way it is now, “official” taxi companies do not need to resort to agressive tactics like Uber, because they already have! What do you think a union is? Literally, damaging another company with the threat of violence if they encroach on your business without jumping through the right hoops, which may preclude a new business because it adds costs which have nothing to do with the sales, safety, or market demands. So somehow Uber is worse for causing their competitors trouble without using force, than state sanctioned cabbies who never allow a competitor in the first place at the threat of violence or theft by the state. Just go and try to pick someone up in NYC and charge them for a ride, and see what happens if you get caught. That is okay?

And in addition to responding with boycott and other market solutions, the rival unregulated taxi business does have recourse. They could explain to their customers what happened, and tell them that is why they are implementing a system where, say, if you reserve a cab, there is a non-refundable $5 fee that pays part of the fare if not cancelled. They could explain to their customers what happened, and encourage the public to do the same to “punish” Uber. But to say because some businesses are run by jerks that all business should be subjected to thug regulators is silly. I’d rather a business be allowed to be a jerk, than have a business that is allowed to use legal thugs with guns who can imprison you. Right now we have the latter.

“Libertarians loooooove discrimination, and are racist”. And here is where people should really see the inconsistencies. Arguing that someone should be allowed to discriminate does not mean you yourself would discriminate, nor support businesses that discriminate. I honestly can’t believe people are serious when they argue this! Do people just go through life being carried by the wind, with no more philosophical grounding than, “that seems good” or “that seems bad”. “Well I know discrimination is bad, so if someone supports it, they must be bad!”

First off, the word discriminate means to tell apart. Would you discriminate against rapists who want to come into your child’s school? I would certainly hope so! People need to realize that no one is forced to patronize a business. What if a noisy motorcycle gang always came into your pizza place, makes a mess, and scares off the usual clientele without buying much? Would it be appropriate to discriminate against bikers if your business would otherwise fail? Or is being non-judgemental more important than your livelihood? Denying someone service is not the same thing as taking something from them, and I don’t think the authors of the various libertarian hit pieces understand that.

It is popular to equate discrimination with force, with stealing. But this necessitates a philosophy that says business owners are there to serve, not to profit. It essentially says, businesses are slaves to the people who must be provided us with things. If I took the time, energy, and money to make a product, that product is not owed to anyone for less of a price than I am willing to part with it. If that willingness to part with the product or service depends on who the customer is, that just means the provider of the product does not see value in the transaction. Should he be enslaved by the state and forced to provide that product or service? That is what anti-discrimiation laws do. They say, since you chose to go into business, and provide something of value, you no longer have the right to choose who to give that thing of value to, and will provide that product or service for the same price you provide it to others.

Again, this does not mean I am pro-discrimination! But to argue that they shouldn’t have the right to deny any customer betrays the intellectual depth of a toddler. I am the one who decided to make, sell, or provide a service, and if those transactions are not free for either party to agree or disagree to, that is literally slave labor. Should airlines go out of business with half full planes because their fat customers cannot be forced to buy 2 tickets, since that would be discrimination? Or should the skinny customer be forced into only half a seat, when he paid for a full seat, because the person next to him is overflowing?

How about gun shops that are currently forced to discriminate, based on who is approved by the government? Say I can’t afford the hundreds of dollars and hours of time and transportation to get my gun license, so I am discriminated against? I mean seriously we talk as if voter ID laws discourage minorities from voting, and we are okay with more hoops, and greater costs being imposed if people want to protect themselves? So to act as if these thugs we allow to have control over our lives (government) will prevent discrimination is absurd, they currently sanction countless types of discrimination. The difference is, since there is no free market, there is nothing we can do about it!

In a free market, am I going to support a business that hangs a sign, “No Irish”? No! Do they have the right to hang the sign? YES! What is so hard to separate about things you shouldn’t do, and things you shouldn’t be allowed to do?

Woof. Anyway this is turning into a rant and I am going to try to wrap this up. The bottom line is, stop pretending libertarians are racist just because their philosophy precludes government backed force. Just because I support the right to free speech, to say WHATEVER you want, does not mean I like or enjoy racist hate rants. It means I understand the philosophical pinnings that say someone is always going to want to silence you, so let’s be consistent in allowing no one to be silenced. Let’s never allow the initiation of force, which means even when you deny a customer service because they are Jewish, men with guns will not come and arrest you, kill you, put you in jail, and put a gun to your head while you make that sandwich.

And you want to talk real world? Fine. What is more democratic than allowing a business to die because they won’t serve Jews? Or are these anti-libertarians afraid that the business would survive while being terribly prejudiced? Yes, that is what they are afraid of. Not being able to initiate force against someone when they disagree with their non-aggressive—though unsavory—actions. And THAT is what being a libertarian is about. Knowing that no matter how rude, selfish, mean, or hateful a person is, force should not be used against them to quell their behavior, until he initiates force against someone else. That is the simple line of when it is okay to use force, when responding to it. Otherwise it is all arbitrary.

For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Discrimination by a business does not legitimize locking that person in a cage, or taking their money at gunpoint. It does legitimize a social response of boycott, shunning, and lecturing; it does elicit the response of non-agressively ruining that business, and making sure every decent person knows what a horrible jerk the owner is.

I want to live in a world where people are decent because they want to be (or economic opportunity forces them to be nice out of self interest), not because there is a gun to their head. And guess what, if that world doesn’t exist without a gun to our heads, then it doesn’t actually exist with a gun to our heads either!