Lord of the Rings: Do You Know The Enemy?

Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him. Yet so little faith do we find now in the world beyond Lothlorien, unless maybe in Rivendell, that we dare not by our own trust endanger our land. We live now upon an island amid many perils, and our hands are more often upon the bowstring than upon the harp. – Haldir, Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Rings

Distrust has been sewn among the ranks of all those who oppose the Dark Lord. But they are right to be distrustful! Bad things do happen, and blind trust is more likely to allow the enemy his chance at sabotage. And since they are so accustomed to having to defend themselves, a violent reaction becomes second nature.

But I want to live in a world where the hand is more often upon the harp. When force is being used widespread against peaceful people, how can we not be on our guard? We don’t want to be victims of attack by the government or fellow citizens, so we can’t go placing blind trust in strangers. Many of us today do feel that we live “upon an island amid many perils.”

So what must be destroyed is the Dark Lord, but to do this, power itself must be destroyed; Tolkien embodied this power in the Ring. And it is like that today as well. Who do you trust? Well this is the live and let live philosophy. Don’t take action against someone unless they try to impose force on you. If multiple groups are working towards the same goal, eliminating power monopolies and therefore the government, we should not fight amongst ourselves.

Right now movements fight amongst themselves. The right claims to hate the power that the government wields, and the left claims to hate the power that the corporations wield. Yet this power is one and the same. Corporations could not use force without the government selling them their power. It is therefore the power that must be destroyed. But today’s equivalent to Sauron is happy to have Republicans fighting with the Democrats about whose ideas will lead to less oppression.

The enemy is the power of force. The elves and dwarves should not be fighting while they both oppose the Dark Lord, and neither should conservatives and liberals while they both seek to solve problems in our society. And when either side wants to use force to solve these problems through government, they will be corrupted and become the evil that they once fought to eradicate.

Indeed, many on the left and the right simply want “their side” to win, and gladly use the force government has to offer. They are the enemy, agents of Sauron. We should not be fooled by someone in our own movement, whatever that may be, who claims to believe in freedom, and then seeks to use force. And likewise we should not categorize everyone in a rival movement, when they may be working for the same goal. The test is easy: do they want to use force to get their way, or are their ideas good enough to stand alone?

If we all properly recognize the enemy as those who use force to get their way, instead of mutually beneficial transactions and agreements, we can join forces and achieve the better world, by destroying the ring of power, and destroying the power of force. And when that force is no longer legitimized with the magic word “government”, our hands will be more often on the harp.

Top 3 Reasons “The Right” Should go Anarchist

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!

Joe Jarvis weaves the anarchist philosophy into his fiction novel, “Anarchy in New England”, in much the same way Ayn Rand wove her anti-government philosophy into “Atlas Shrugged”.

For a gripping, fast paced fiction read that delves into the philosophy of no government, buy “Anarchy in New England” on E-book or Paperback now!

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.

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.

Forced Grouping versus Voluntary Collectives

“Oh what you belong to ___ group? I thought you libertarians and anarcho-capitalists hated collectives! Ha, everything you stand for is disproven.”

Ever heard that one, or some variation of it? Well I can’t say it much better than Bastiat himself, however I will expand on his rebuttal.


I feel like a broken record: no we aren’t against helping the poor, we are against forced extortion to supposedly help the poor. No we are not against education, we are against forced indoctrination. No we are not against law and order, we are against forced grouping that makes us subservient to others to whom the law does not equally apply, and who can initiate force without the same consequences as the civilians.

Anarchists and libertarians are not against voluntary collectives, they are against forced collectives.

Yesterday I was walking in the woods with some friends. We had been hiking for a while and turned and twisted around many paths when we came to a four way intersection. Not wanting to turn back, we began to discuss which way would be best to take. In fact after some discussion, we all agreed to take the same path. But suppose I thought a different path was better. Should I attempt to force them to take the path I want? Or should they, being in the majority, attempt to force me to take the path they want? Of course not.

In a voluntary group, I am free to leave or stay. In the middle of the woods my options are to agree with the group, or be left alone. I see value in the group, and that is why I submit to the majority. Not because the majority has the right to force their will on the minority, and not even because the will of the majority is necessarily better in some way than the minority. No one claims that groups cannot be of great use and help. But they must be voluntary groups in order to serve this purpose best.

Forced Grouping

In addition to the post I wrote on Sociopaths Among Us for this blog, I tailored a similar post for my other, non-political blog. A commenter brought up an awesome point, inspired by the book The Gift of Fear by Gavin Debecker. The book is non-fiction about how our intuition is actually picking up subconscious signals which logically lead us to be uneasy in certain situations when everything does not line up, even though we might not be able to pinpoint why.

Interestingly enough, I just thought about this book yesterday because the book discusses a tactic used by these types of people called “forced teaming” where they create a “we” or “us” when there really isn’t one. For example, a stranger approaches you and says “look at this rain we got ourselves stuck in, I guess we’re going to have to go into this dark abandoned structure together”. The point is is that there is no “WE”. The person is a stranger and this is a tactic that they use to get you to do something that you normally wouldn’t be comfortable with doing.

The reason why I thought of that is because I kept seeing political slander ads that said things like, “this candidate is not for us” and “this candidate doesn’t share our values”. I immediately thought, who is “us” and “our values”? It is scary the little things that people or groups do like that that the untrained or unsuspecting person might fall prey to.

Emphasis added. If forced pairing is a tactic used by dishonest people who are attempting to get someone from you, or victimize you, why would we think it is any different when politicians do it? The government is attempting to victimize you and me by getting us to feel apart of a team that does not exist. There is no us when it comes to government! Any “us” is a forced us, through arbitrary borders, or the IRS, or congressional districting, etcetera.

There is no “us” when it comes to a politician. They are attempting to steal your money, and give it away to their political donors after lining their pockets. They want to force you to comply with a new law, or get you to join in on the forced pairing, and benefit at the detriment of your “team mates”. Some want to make sure gay couples can force bakers to make them cakes, and force pastors to say they are married. Some want to throw you in jail if you smoke a joint, or take more of your money for bombing… I don’t know who, just pick a middle eastern country, I’m sure we are bombing them.

But the only legitimate collectives are voluntary, and all the others ones are for someone to gain while the forced members lose. When it is an individual sociopath trying to get you alone inside a dark building, we see the evils in forced pairing. But somehow when a politician does the same thing, so many are inclined to believe them: “Oh I like him, he looks me in the eye”. Great… great… have fun inside that creepy basement.

Any forced collective is bad, because it just means that some people are slaves, or caged to the desires of others. And when collectives are not forced, only the best ones form and persist. When a collective is voluntary, people only join for mutual gain, and can leave when they no longer value the group. And likewise, the group can expel a member who  takes and takes without contributing.

We Are All Slaves.

If you were born in America, you were born on the American plantation. It’s not the worst plantation, and it is not the best. But we are slaves here, we have masters, and we cannot so easily escape… not without dire consequences.

Harriet Tubman said:

“I freed a thousand slaves, and I could have freed a thousand more, if only they knew they were slaves”.

Let’s start at birth, when the government gives us a social security number. This number will follow us throughout our lives. It is required to start a bank account, get a job, buy a house, get a loan, etcetera. If we work hard enough, we are told, and if we survive long enough, this number will be our key to a happy, prosperous retirement!

At the beginning, when the laws of Animal Farm were first formulated, the retiring age had been fixed for horses and pigs at twelve, for cows at fourteen, for dogs at nine, for sheep at seven, and for hens and geese at five. Liberal old-age pensions had been agreed upon. As yet no animal had actually retired on pension, but of late the subject had been discussed more and more. Now that the small field beyond the orchard had been set aside for barley, it was rumoured that a corner of the large pasture was to be fenced off and turned into a grazing-ground for superannuated animals.

That is an excerpt from Animal Farm, and spoiler alert, the horse Boxer doesn’t get to retire in the pasture, he gets turned into glue.

But anyway, suppose I make it through my slave training (public schooling) and decide the life of a slave isn’t really for me—suppose I think I don’t really have to work for the government my whole life. What can I do?

Can I go get a piece of land, set up shop, and forget about the outside world? Well first I will need to labour enough to earn $200,000. That would take about 8 years on a $10/hour wage, but with taxes it will take at very least ten years, saving practically every cent that isn’t taxed away. Ten years a slave, and I will be free! Now I am 28, and ready to start my life.

I got my land! I won’t take anything from society or the government. I’m just going to stay on my property, grow my own food, build my own shelter, not use outside electricity, not use outside water, and fend for myself, okay? Nope, I must earn some money to pay the property taxes. Well fine, at least I can minimize my slave labor to the state, and be a 92% free man. I manage to get a $10/hour job, and work only 4 weeks a year to pay the $1,600 property tax on my modest home.

But wait, if I am going to earn $1,600 per year, the state and federal governments need a piece as well! Even if I get my withholding back, the social security and medicare is still taken. Fine, whatever, I only need to work another 3 days to pay for those taxes.

Oh wait, since I need to get a job to pay my taxes, I will need a way to get to and from the job. I’ll just get a heap of a vehicle, spend only $2,000 which will take me 5 weeks to earn enough to buy. Just kidding, I will also be taxed on that income, so it will take me 6 weeks to earn enough. But actually, there is also a 5% sales tax, and a yearly excise tax of $50, so make that almost 7 weeks. If I am lucky, next year I won’t have to work so much for my vehicle, but chances are it will need repairs.

Okay, okay, I can deal with working 11 weeks per year as a slave to the government, just so that I can live on my own piece of property. I forgot about gas, damn it! Alright another 3 weeks of work per year (almost one third of that labour going to pay the taxes on the gas). I am determined to only be a slave to the government 14 weeks per year! And every second of that labour, and every cent earned is only to get the government “their” money, simply because I was born on one of these 4 million square acres we call America. It is slave labour so that the other 38 weeks a year you can be left alone on your property to somehow figure out how to survive.

Except… you kind of need a shelter, and cannot build one without a permit, unless you want to risk a steep fine, subjecting you to further slave labour. Uhg! $100 for a building permit? Another $100 to get a permit to keep animals? Fine. That’s another week when you figure in more taxes, gas, and taxes on the gas. So it looks like someone might conceivably be able to get away with being a part time slave to the government, only 29% of each year. The rest of the year will be that much more grueling to create enough to live on, since 1/3 of your time must be spent laboring for the plantation owners.

Isn’t There an Alternative?

How about I just move into the mountains, hunt and gather, and leave society behind? What? A Runaway slave, you say?! You will be arrested and imprisoned for living on government land in the national, state, or local parks. Or else you will be kidnapped and caged for living on someone else’s private property.

Well can I just choose a different plantation? Yeah, I guess… but my slave labor will not add up to much less, and possibly even more under the new slave owners. Oh right, it also costs $2,350 to denounce your U.S. citizenship. Work makes you free. Hmmm, where have I heard that before…

But I am sure I could find enough friends and strangers to lend me their land for hunting and gathering. Ha! Where’s your health insurance? You need to buy health insurance (another 4 weeks of slave labor at least) or pay the fine; currently only less than a week of slave labor. But alas, I cannot simply earn this money and be done, I must earn enough extra to pay the taxes, and get me to and from my slave job.

Not minding being a slave does not mean you are not a slave. As Harriet Tubman expressed, many people are not even aware that they are slaves. The master gives us a shack to live in, and scraps to eat, as long as we keep laboring away day in and day out in order to fund the plantation owners and slave masters. And if we are so uppity as to question why we must be slaves while others are masters, we will get lashings, or a cage, or our family will be split up, or we will be killed.

People stealing from you, and forcing you to labor for them is not okay just because they call themselves the government. I’m not claiming to be Harriet Tubman. I am simply a fellow slave trying to wake some of the other slaves up before she comes back around to lead more of us to freedom.

Wake-up Call from Ferguson: Stop the Police State

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That is why police arrested two journalists the other day in Ferguson, MO before releasing them without charges. Had the journalists done anything wrong, or committed a crime? No. Were they taunting police, or causing a disruption? No, they were eating at McDonald’s, when it was stormed by a SWAT-like unit of police. Maybe the police were hoping one of the journalists’ hands would leave their view so they could shoot him with impunity. But how stupid must these cops be to think arresting two mainstream reporters would help their image, or improve the situation?

This stomping of First Amendment rights—or just human rights, natural rights against being harassed for normal, non aggressive activity—will only lead more to wake up. I am glad, for the sake of public awareness, some mainstream media personnel are going through what amateur videographers and bloggers go through daily. We are starting to hear whispers: is the public waking up from their dream of a peaceful 1950’s Officer Friendly neighborhood, to find themselves in the cold dark reality of a police state?

“From the beginning of this situation, the police have made conscious decisions to restrict information and images coming from Ferguson,” David Boardman, president of the association, said in the statement. “Of course, these efforts largely have been unsuccessful, as the nation and the world are still seeing for themselves the heinous actions of the police. For every reporter they arrest, every image they block, every citizen they censor, another will still write, photograph and speak.”

“That behavior was wholly unwarranted and an assault on the freedom of the press to cover the news,” Baron said. “The physical risk to Wesley himself is obvious and outrageous. After being placed in a holding cell, he was released with no charges and no explanation. He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him.”

This comes after the Ferguson police attempted to ban low flying aircraft over the city, so that news helicopters could not see what was happening on the ground. Through every step of this recent tragedy, the police have done the wrong thing: becoming violent and militarized, shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters, and suppressing the filming and reporting of the events. There were in fact riots; so why are the police bothering to harass innocent people while they could be stopping looting and actual violence?

Of course the whole situation in Ferguson between rightfully angry protesters and militarized police started when an unarmed black teenager was shot dead by police. The police are now saying he was a “strong-armed robbery” suspect: he allegedly shoplifted and intimidated the clerk. But why does that lead to a death sentence, carried out without judge and jury, by an arresting officer? If the suspect was dangerous, get more officers to subdue him without incident. If the suspect was not dangerous, then why is he dead? Again, the police only know how to do one thing: use force, more and more often excessive force.

Situations everyday are exacerbated by a police presence that looks like it dropped from the sky out of a war zone in the middle east—the training ground for a new generation of police. There are SWAT raids for non-violent crimes, often no-knock raids in which people are accidentally shot, or shot on purpose when they respond how anyone would respond to random unidentified violent people breaking into their homes!

Many of us lowly bloggers have been attempting to raise the red flag about the way police are acting these days. Unfortunately there is an attitude that it is always “the other side” being harassed by the police. And that is another product of the fascism which splintered into both mainstream political parties: one loves the nanny state, one loves the police state. And as a former police state apologist (many moons ago), I see it as my duty to wake people up to the fact that the dog will bite the hand that fed it.

When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

“Statists” “Parasites” and Other Accurate Insults

The following is taken from Larken Rose, on the subject of people considering accurate terms used to describe them as insults. I have posted in the past on the importance of defining words in order to have an informative discussion, and this is of the same vein.

The best kind of “insults” are those which are simply literally accurate descriptions. Most of the time, when it comes to bashing state-worshipers, being blunt and precise is plenty nasty all by itself. For example:

1) “Statist” has become an insult, when all it means is someone who advocates a state. The exact type and flavor of the state is irrelevant. Constitutionalists are statists just as much as fascists are. If you’re not an anarchist, you’re a statist, just based on what the words mean. Yet many who openly condone “government” consider the term “statist” an insult, and insist it doesn’t apply to them (when it obviously does).

2) When I call politicians “parasites,” I’m being literal. A parasite (a tic, a tapeworm, a flea, a leech, etc.) is something that lives by latching onto to something else (a host) and robbing it of its life blood, its resources and energy. Is that not a perfect description of the state: an organism which gets all of its wealth and power by stealing it from the actually productive people?

3) There’s a term for someone who is a hired gun, who inflicts violence on others in exchange for a paycheck. He’s call a “mercenary.” So when I call cops and soldiers “state mercenaries,” I’m being perfectly accurate. The fact that they don’t like the literal description of what they do isn’t my problem.

Statists also don’t like “taxation” being referred to as theft and extortion; but it is. And they don’t like recipients of “government” “benefits” to be identified as recipients of stolen loot; but they are. And they don’t like “political action” being described as the advocacy of violence against one’s neighbors; but it is. And so on, ad infinitum.

Here’s a thought: if LITERALLY and ACCURATELY describing what you advocate and condone sounds like an INSULT, maybe it’s because you’re advocating and condoning irrational, immoral crap. The proper solution is not to bitch at the people pointing that out. The proper solution is to STOP advocating and condoning irrational, immoral crap.

Rand Paul is So Crazy, He Wants to Stop Perpetual Warfare

rand-paulSo let’s see, John McCain has some foreign policy criticisms for Rand Paul? Well Rand must be doing something right. Dick Cheney thinks Paul doesn’t understand the true threat of terrorism, adding “You’ve got folks who simply don’t want to be bothered, and it’s been a long time since 9/11,”. If only the electorate was still whipped into a scared frenzy over terrorism, then they would elect the right people.

It’s actually insane to me that Dick Cheney still speaks publicly. Is this some kind of reverse psychology strategy, because the guy must know people think he’s a villain. I just don’t get how people can keep trying the same ridiculous strategy overseas, and then have the nerve to call Rand Paul crazy when he suggests we don’t engage in endless 1984 style wars. This is not a conspiracy, the military industrial complex are welfare recipients, and will do what they have to in order to keep the cash flowing.

But somehow people believe that we need to keep fighting wars in, say, Iraq in order to keep America safe. Even as hundreds or thousands of people pour over the border every day without being checked out, putting our men and women in uniform thousands of miles away to kill terrorists is going to make us safer? How about leaving that stolen and squandered tax money in the hands of the people, because I know how to provide for my security better than my government. At least I’ll be able to choose which company is most effective, and it wouldn’t be the one charging 10x more so that they can bust down Iraqi doors until the cows come home.

It is the same as any other insane government expenditure; first it goes through the corruption machine. We have all these middlemen in DC that cannot possibly add value to our transactions, they can only siphon off wealth. They do it when it comes to providing welfare and a “safety net”, they steal from us when backing green energy, and they use funds taken by force to harass with law enforcement the same people who funded them at gunpoint. A thousand injuries we bear from our government.

The military is no different, it still wastes our wealth and delivers a sub-par product. Then the money spent on building tanks instead of being invested gets aimed at us in the form of a cannon when our local police chief gets his hands on an “urban assault vehicle”, because my friends who value ending slavery are that dangerous to the rulers.

“It’s not isolationism. It’s setting a high bar for sending our sons and daughters overseas,” said Lorne Craner, a foreign policy adviser to Paul…

Trade is not isolationist, yet how do you trade with a country that has been reduced to rubble? Growing economies is what will make the world safer, if everyone’s life is good enough so that they don’t want to murder people they never met. Right now, America is ensuring a steady stream of terrorists for years to come, by giving plenty of little boys and girls a faceless, foreign enemy to grow up hating. The enemy whose boots have literally and figuratively been on their faces for decades.

Craner, however, argued that Paul’s views are more in line with Americans who are growing increasingly distrustful after the experiences of the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and want a clearer sense of the objectives of future military actions and how they’re going to end.

And let’s not separate this from other reasons to be distrustful of our government. The same scumbags who are in charge of the IRS, DHS, EPA, FDA, and NSA are in charge of our military. The orders about auditing TEA Partiers are issued by the same person who orders drone strikes on countries we are not at war with.

The same “government will save us” philosophy that allows the EPA to trespass on our property and claim control of our water also says the U.S. can “help” Iraq, or “improve” Syria, or at least that screwing over people overseas will make third parties (us) safer. Sort of like how pro-gun folks are harassed by the government for the sake of the children. But as pro-gunners, we know it doesn’t make our children any safer to outlaw guns. That same attitude needs to be transcribed to everything the government does.

The take away is that Rand Paul can only improve things for the country by advocating a deescalation of force overseas. The example set at home is likewise a deescalation of force, and the fewer tanks the USA builds, the fewer tanks they will end up selling to your local police department who considers you a terrorist. The military has been a third rail for conservatives for a while, but it is time we treat military issues the same as any other statist, big government, safety net, welfare addled, cronyist, corrupt power orgy it is.

Whenever we get the chance to vote with our dollars instead of with politicians, I suggest we take it. If we want to keep more wealth in this nation, then at least Rand Paul is more consistent than many Republicans. Because a tax cut isn’t really a tax cut if we are still spending the money. Set the example for what a small government really looks like militarily, and there’s a good chance the rest will follow. It is not as scary as it sounds. True threats will be solved with a free market, so we cannot advocate monopolizing force militarily, at the same time we seek to combat aggressive force at home from our police, and regulatory agencies. If you have faith in anything, have faith in market solutions—you and me.

Political Transformation: Republican to Anarchist

Beliefs should be dynamic as new information comes into the picture, or more understanding is developed. Plenty of energy is put into making sure this change does not occur in politics, so that the people in power can remain in power. Sometimes they have to change what they say or how they vote in order to keep their voters, while most politicians probably don’t really change their beliefs (most seem to think they were born to be ruling elites). But for the most part, they want to retain the same voting block, and stagnant beliefs are the way to do it. That is why I want to recount my transformation in political beliefs.

I remember my parents voting for Bob Dole, and people saying they would vote for Clinton because Bob Dole would probably die in office. That was when I was in second grade, so it was funny to hear people say the same thing when McCain ran in 2008. Of course, that’s why we have Vice Presidents, but its a catchy reason to justify a vote. I wonder if people will say the say thing about Hillary who will be 69 in 2016, 3 years younger than McCain was in 2008.

Then when I was in 6th grade I remember energetically supporting Bush. From what I knew, if you voted for Republicans, government would shrink, taxes would go down, and there would be more freedom. It would be cute if it wasn’t so sad! But I was 12 years old and that was my understanding. Democrats just wanted to raise taxes, take our guns, and make more laws.

And Republican I remained for many years, registering as one when I turned 18, even though most of my family are independent. Still I grew up being told to never trust government, and generally I thought Republicans would take government out of my life. By this time I understood that there were mysterious creatures called RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. McCain was a RINO because he took away free speech rights when he teamed up with Feingold.

But you gotta vote for the lesser of two evils, right? So I swallowed hard and voted for McCain in 2008 so that Obama couldn’t “spread the wealth around”. And at least McCain was a veteran who loved his country…right?

I was already essentially libertarian in mindset, it just took a while for me to realize Republicans were not. This thing I believed about how Republicans would lower taxes and shrink government, except for a few RINO exceptions… nope. It was vice versa. There were a few good Republicans who fit the definition I believed, which was just libertarian. So I gravitated towards Ron Paul because he was the real deal, wanting to end the Fed, and free the market. Free markets seemed, and still do, so obviously beneficial to me.

And with Ron Paul’s message I continued down the path to a libertarian mindset, beginning to realize the wars we fight overseas are not national defense, they don’t keep us safe, and they are inconsistant. If we are saving oppressed people, well then there were 500 more countries we should invade. If we are keeping America safe, well why is North Korea still around? It didn’t make sense and I began to say, close the bases, bring them home, defend our country. Big Navy, put them on the borders, let the rest of the world see how it does without the U.S.

The military thing was a tough one to let go of, because it is often the main cheer for the Republican team. It was much easier to get on board with things like ending the drug war and gay rights (rather, abolishing the recognition of any marriage by the government, because the less control the better). And with a consistent mindset, I was never confused on an issue, it was simple: does this grow or shrink government? Does this give them more control or less control? Are they intervening in the economy or not?

This came along with Ayn Rand, and the non-agression principle, that you should not initiate force against another. But Ayn Rand still thought you needed some government, and had some justification for it, even though she claimed to believe fully in that no one has the right to initiate force. Except the government, just a little, on a small scale? That didn’t make much sense. But what was the alternative? It must just be a matter of designing the perfect government to remain small. America came close, but if we could just tweak a few things in the Constitution, we would forever be able to limit government… with a piece of paper. In college I even began to design a new government, based on the Constitution but with different mechanisms to keep the voters in control and the government decentralized.

In 2012 I wouldn’t do it again, vote for the lesser of two evil. I voted for Gary Johnson because at least then it was a protest vote, sort of like none of the above (even though I did actually like Gary Johnson). Still a piece of me hoped Romney would win, because at least the country would go downhill at a slower pace. People would pretend Fascist and Socialist were opposite ends of the political spectrum, but that’s not true. It’s Dictators, Monarchies, Fascist, and Socialist at one end, and Anarchy at the other.

I knew I was on the Anarchy side, but hadn’t taken the plunge because I was scared of the chaos that would surely result from having no government. Can you imagine, just us animals running around wild! We see how humans act, so what if they weren’t held in check by the law? Little did I understand that I was putting the cart before the horse. This is how humans act because of the government, and the examples it sets. Murder, kidnapping, assault, theft could all be justified because when the government did it, it was okay. So why Isn’t it okay if I do it?

And in 2013 at PorcFest I finally got my answer of how it would work in an anarcho-capitalist society. When used synonymously with free-market, capitalism is an ideal. Just free trade, no limitations on voluntary agreements between two individuals. David Friedman made me realize that if there is a market for something it will be provided. And as I knew was the case for health, currency, food safety, economics etcetera, markets would likewise deliver roads and security better and more efficiently than a monopoly on force, because the businesses would have to respond to their customers’.

The market forces would regulate these things, and since everyone wouldn’t choose the same business, competition would keep them honest and cheap. We are the regulators, the market, and without government serving as blocker, we are better equipped to make decisions about where we put our money and how the services should be delivered. We can vote with out dollars, because our votes for politicians don’t matter. That is an ineffective check on government power, and an inefficient means of providing the change in systems that would be demanded by customers if it were a business delivering the services, who must turn a profit to remain.

But no one really talked about how to get there, to a society without force, so I thought about it. I came up with a peaceful method to strive for and put a presentation together for PorcFest this year (I will post the video when it is available). It involved transitioning through the legislative process, shrinking government, and finally abolishing it slowly with time for the market to give rise to alternatives to any desired services the government previously monopolized and extracted money by force to pay for.

And after I gave my talk, another possibility was introduced to me for the transition, also peacefully, to a society without the monopolization of force, and without “legal” coercion. Opt out. Find enough people like you who you can live peacefully in a community with, and opt out. When the tax man comes to take you away, inform him that you do no desire, nor require their “services”, will not use them, and refuse to pay for them. Alone, they will come for you with guns and cage you, maybe kill you if you resist the kidnapping. But there is strength in numbers, not only in one community, but in groups of communities.

I was lucky enough to have my family come with me on the transition. With the way I was taught how to learn, not what to learn, it was natural that at some point my parents would learn from me, and they were open minded enough to do so. Then I would learn a little more from them. Then them from me. We, along with my siblings and cousins, would leap frog in our ideas about government. Every time someone learned something new, or adopted a new attitude or idea, it was discussed, with the foundation agreement on the non-agression principle. Each of us didn’t just want to be “right” and have everyone believe our version of whatever, we sought truth, and in doing so were able to adopt what made sense, and abandon the fallacies.

I’m not going to say this is the end of my journey, there should never be an end to finding truth, to learning, to discovering the best way to live. I want to free the population, I am against human slavery, in all its forms. But this is how I went from being a slave feuding with a rival slave faction, to a self aware slave, trying to bring all the other slaves together and resist out violent masters.