Nature Says Every Individual Matters

There are two basic reproductive strategies nature has taken, with profound implications for evolution and consciousness.

The first, the strategy used by mammals, is to produce a small number of young offspring and then carefully nurse each one to maturity. This is a risky strategy, because only a few progeny are produced in each generation, so it assumes that nurturing will even out the odds. This means that every life is cherished and carefully nurtured for a length of time.

But there is another, much older strategy that is used by much of the plant and animal kingdom, including insects, reptiles, and most other lifeforms on Earth. This involves creating a large number of eggs or seeds and then letting them fend for themselves. Without nurturing, most of the offspring never survive, so only a few hardy individuals will make it into the next generation. This means that the energy invested in each generation by the parents is nil, and reproduction relies on the law of averages to propagate the species. –The Future of the Mind, Michio Kaku

It is important to learn from, and work with nature if we want to have success as a species. The natural way of humans is to cherish each individual. Society does not function properly when elites try to organize us like ants in a colony.

This is clearly seen in economics. Keynesians think that the economy can be designed and tweaked by “experts” like a machine. But this ends up creating bubbles—the appearance of demand where there is none, which leads to misplaced investment. But promoters of a free market understand that there is a natural order, and when human interactions are left alone, the proper fruit will grow—mutually beneficial transactions based on supply and demand. The economy is a crop to be planted and given the proper environment to grow.

In this same sense, society, and each individual making up that society, will be better off when the natural approach is taken. The natural approach is what gave rise to our species’ dominance in the first place. Yes, it was a risky strategy of nature to spend so much time on each individual. But it resulted in arguably the best, most intelligent creatures on Earth. Not just humans, but dolphins, apes, dogs and every other mammal. This is the age of mammals, the animals which cherish the individual. Things will go south very quickly if mammals are treated like insects or reptiles; like expendable cogs in a machine.

Learn from, and mimic what nature has created. Humans succeeded by valuing every individual, not hampering their potential in the name of the “greater good”. The human race is threatened by those who see some individuals as expendable, in order to benefit a minority of other individuals, in the name of the survival of the species. But nature tells us that without the survival of the individual, there will be no species.

An ant colony can benefit from sacrificing some ants for the greater good of the colony. But humans are not ants. The species only exists because individuals were nurtured, therefore the freer every one of us is to choose our own path in life, the better we will do as a species.

Human Progress is Like a Marathon…

I try to play devil’s advocate with myself, in order to always move closer and closer to truth in my beliefs. So the other day while running, which is a great outlet for getting the mind flowing as much as the blood, it occurred to me that there must be examples of government advancing civilization at certain times.

It is practically impossible to tease apart all the factors in a society that contribute to its advance, stagnation, or decline. Clearly it is easy to point to the “benefit” government creates in one sector, while ignoring the cost in another sector (for example corn subsidies might be good for the farmer, but bad for the taxpayer). That is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about examples of government force being wielded so as to prevent a cataclysmic catastrophe, or bring about a monumental advance. Perhaps an example would be Chinese government funded invention and discovery of the 15th century.

Now per usual, I have to remind readers that I still do not believe the end justifies the means. Even if I stole $10,000 from my neighbors, knowing they would blow it on booze and cigarettes, and invested it for a return of 20% over just one year, returning $12,000 to them, this would still be wrong. Even if I do know how to manage their money better than them, it is still theft, and it is still aggression to take it in the first place, even if I return it with interest, and even if I buy them something with their stolen money that would greatly improve their quality of life.

But anyway suppose government could advance civilization, on the whole, without harming anyone in the sense that everyone’s life was actually improved in some objective manner. Yes, already a big what if, but considering extreme examples can help define our philosophy. So for argument’s sake say a government has in the past over a ten, twenty, hundred, or five hundred year period “advanced civilization”.

The Marathon to Become Civilized

To run a marathon in just under three and a half hours takes about an 8 minute per mile pace, and this is a respectable marathon time for any amateur. Now, in order to hit the target time, the best way to run it is slightly negative splits, that is, to get just a little faster each mile. No one is perfect, and most people end up varying a bit from mile to mile, but it is hard to hit your target time if you are off by more than about about ten seconds on either side, per mile.

What happens if our marathoner decides to go out with the elite runners, and does a 4:40 first mile? Well he is sure as hell not going to hit his target marathon time of 3:30. Most likely he will have to drop out of the race because he has never sprinted so fast in his life, and his legs now feel like jello. If our runner manages to push himself the rest of the way after that first mile, we are looking at a five hour marathon at best.

Relying on government to advance civilization is like forcing an 8 minute mile pace marathoner to sprint at random times throughout the race, “because it will more quickly get him to the finish”. And sure, for 4 minutes and 40 seconds of that marathon, it was easy to argue that he was quickly advancing towards his goal. But at what overall cost?

Civilization will naturally progress, and some miles might be slower than others, but government does not get us any closer to our overall goal in any real sense. It may feel like we are rapidly advancing at times, but the hidden costs of that advance are bound to slow progress down later. The monster we allow in government force will always come back to haunt us with a destructive war, genocide, epidemic, or any number of other unintended consequences of allow some people to break the rules of society that the rest of us must live by.

Chinese Versus European Progress

An old article I wrote based on Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel contrasted the centralized authority of Chinese government in the early 1400’s, with the diverse competing governments of Europe in the late 1400’s. China had 400 foot ships going on treasure expeditions as early as 1405, but when a rival faction took over the government, they grounded the fleet, dismantled the shipyards, and made shipping illegal in order to centralize their power. This one decision possibly set China back a thousand years; but it was the same type of power which initially gave China a navy more advanced than would again appear on earth until the 18th century.

Columbus had a 62 foot ship almost a hundred years after the Chinese were sailing to Africa on 400 foot ships. But even though Europe was initially behind in technological development, their progress was steady according to Diamond.

The story was the same with Europe’s cannon, electric lighting, printing, small firearms, and innumerable other innovations: each was first neglected or opposed in some parts of Europe for idiosyncratic reasons, but once adopted in one area, it eventually spread to the rest of Europe…

Europe’s geographic balkanization resulted in dozens or hundreds of independent, competing statelets and centers of innovation. If one state did not pursue some particular innovation, another did, forcing neighboring states to do likewise or else be conquered or left economically behind. Europe’s barriers were sufficient to prevent political unification, but insufficient to halt the spread of technology and ideas. There has never been one despot who could turn off the tap for all of Europe, as of China. (413-416)

I’m using Europe as a “free market” example because the states were competing with each other. But clearly their power was also a government sprint versus a steady pace. Perhaps the Portuguese fishermen who had already discovered North America would have set a different tone for the new world than Columbus’s government funded expedition, and the government armadas which followed.

Maybe working together with the Native Americans in the interest of mutually beneficial transactions would have advanced society naturally so that we stayed on pace to reach our marathon goal. Instead we are still at mile 18 when we wanted to be finishing.

Atlas Protection: For All Your Security Needs

In my novel, Anarchy in New England, many competing security companies exist to bring crime insurance, street patrols, and criminal investigation to consumers. One such company is Atlas Protection, and this is how I imagine their security contract to look. (I have kept it short and basic; in reality a security contract would read much more in depth, including specific definitions and intricacies of each crime, with much more detail etc.).

Atlas Protection Security Fulfillment

Thank you for choosing Atlas Protection for all of your security needs. If you have purchased crime insurance in a bundle through our partners, Atlantic Insurance or Coastal Insurance, welcome, we appreciate your business.

The Section Your Coverage below will explain what Atlas Protection will provide and protect you against. The Stipulations section will review any actions that would cause us to drop coverage in the event an injured party seeks damages.

Atlas Protection investigates most criminal complaints, however we also partner with Cape Cod Criminology Labs for forensic testing. While we do provide patrols in some areas, those further from our offices will have patrols fulfilled by Northern Watch or Mountain Rangers, depending on your location. Atlas Protection is proud to work in collaboration with New England Security Agency, Corner Cop Security, and Minuteman Arms, among others, to ensure the closest security personnel will always respond in cases of emergency.

Atlas Protection retains Hudson Arbitration to settle disputes with other security companies. We advise customers that although we can appeal decisions made by arbitration, the final results are legally binding and may result in the cancellation of coverage if you are found guilty of a crime, or dismissal of charges if a suspected assailant is found innocent of victimizing you. If you wish to purchase accusation insurance for Atlas Protection to continue to represent you in the event of a conviction, please talk to your Atlas Protection representative.

Your Coverage

If you have purchased a Gold account with us, you are covered for daily patrols, and theft protection of up to $10,000. If you have purchased a business account, please speak to your representative if you have questions about the amount and time of patrols, and area to be patrolled. Your representative will also be able to answer any questions about how much theft protection will be included in your plan.

We strive to accurately investigate, and bring assailants to justice, in order to recover the losses you sustain. It is our guarantee that if we do not bring the perpetrator to justice within one year of a complaint, Atlas Protection will pay out a settlement in accordance to the crime. All of our policies will always cover emergency response–including health emergencies and fires–, investigation, and prosecution to protect you against the following crimes:

  • Assault on your person, a family member, or anyone you are consorting with, whether on someone else’s property or your own.
  • Theft of your property, including items on your person or at home, but not including items left on property that is not your own, unless you were deceived into parting with said property.
  •  Serious threats on your life or property.
  • Trespassing, breaking and entering, home invasion, and forced entry.
  • Murder, rape, and attempted murder/ rape of you, a family member, or cohort. In cases where the policy holder is murdered, the policy will stay active through the investigation and prosecution, at which time the next of kin will be given the option of continuing coverage. If you have purchased life insurance through our affiliates, this will be paid immediately, and not in accordance with any investigation, except in cases of suspected suicide or fraudulent death claims.
  • All other crimes which violate self ownership, and all rights which stem from self ownership. All crimes of aggression, but not defensive action (in cases where policy holder attempts to injure another).

Stipulations: Your Responsibility

I: In addition to protection from crime, Atlas Protection also advocates for you in the event you are accused of a crime.

All crimes and actions which this policy protects against may not be engaged in by the policy holder. In cases when a policy holder commits a crime, including but not limited to assault, theft, trespassing, murder etc., protection will be subject to cancellation after investigations by Atlas Protection and any other security agency have been completed, submitted, and reviewed by Hudson Arbitration and/or another third party arbiter who finds the policy holder guilty.

In such cases Atlas Protection will continue to act as defense in sentencing in order to assure fair treatment, but will yield to arbitration’s final recommendation. It is at Atlas Protection’s sole discretion whether or not coverage will continue after the verdict, and if found guilty, the policy holder may be subject to a surcharge and price increase if you wish to continue your coverage.

Security coverage will never be dropped because of an accusation alone. Though we retain the right to cancel policies in the event of conviction, up until that point, Atlas Protection will represent you against individuals, companies, and other security agencies who accuse you of a crime.

II: In cases where security personal with a valid warrant signed by a third party arbiter seek access to your home, you must allow them inside, in accordance with the warrant. They must however (1) present the warrant, (2) identify themselves, and (3) wait for a representative from our office to validate the agents’ identity as well as the warrant. Without those three steps, you are under no obligation to comply with any security personnel at your home, and Atlas Protection will prosecute the perpetrators if they force entry.

By signing this contract, you agree not to engage in the prohibited violations of others’ rights, and agree that coverage is null and void if you are found guilty after investigation and arbitration has completed.

Buy it on Amazon!

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.

Politics Prevents Progress

Cannabis is legal in a handful of states, and gays can now be equally unequal to everyone else! But the public didn’t want to throw anyone in jail for weed 20 years ago, and where I reside in the northeast hasn’t given a crap about stopping gays from being together for at least as long. So why are these things hailed as political victories?

It takes the government way longer to catch up than the public. And in the mean time gays are marginalized, kids are thrown in jail for possessing a plant, and countless other atrocities occur just waiting for the government to stop being so stupid and repressive.

The government has all the advantages in the public discourse. They can repeal some ridiculous law that THEY put in place, and everyone hails the government as having solved the problem! Are you freaking kidding me? Don’t give the government credit for removing a ridiculous law that they put in place in the first place, causing countless innocent people to be locked in cages!

The government stalls progress, and should never be given credit when they finally catch up to the wishes of the public. The public actually gets along pretty well. And if the government didn’t stand in our way, we would solve these issues way before the idiots on Capital Hill ever get around to it.

Another way of saying WE would solve these problems without government obstruction is to say the market would solve these problems. Who would arrest pot-smokers if not the government? Murderers would still be arrested, because there would be a market for it: we would all want to solve the problem of crime. So we would spend our money, and figure out a fair trial system to make sure we take criminals off the street. Not many people will pay to police “crimes” where these is no victim. There would be no special treatment for government cronies, and enough competing agencies to hold the other ones accountable!

joejarvisedmeme

Having government educate children is like a death sentence for humanity. We can be sure they will never make kids smart enough to know they don’t need government! In this modern era, we can easily figure out how to educate kids for very cheap, and in a way that doesn’t make them hate their lives in a classroom for six hours a day. Humanity is ready for the next generation of education where the possibilities are endless, government is holding us back.

And another thing, the people of America aren’t at war with the people of where-ever. We might not like their government, just like most of us don’t like our own government. But don’t let our scumbags in charge convince us that the people of those countries mirror their scumbags in charge. If anything, we are worse in America, because at least we ELECTED our scum to office. Most of the people we condemn got their leaders by outright force (or by the U.S. installing them)!

So again, without the bumbling government machine, we would already be hanging out with Iraqi’s and North Koreans.

And without the government ruining lives over victimless crimes, and arbitrary laws, we would all be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya.

Government is why we can’t have nice things. End rant.

Would the Fall of the United States Government be as Tumultuous as the Fall of Rome?

It is possible that the United States government collapses under its own weight. Though many scoff at the idea of the U.S. government collapsing, it would actually be stranger if it didn’t. We need look no further than the collapse of Rome in 476, which fell due to many of the same conditions which affect the U.S. today.

But the U.S. has 50 states to pick up the pieces. Because of the unique setup of the United States, these 50 states could cushion the blow of an immediate collapse, stopping another strongman from taking over the whole landmass in the turmoil. Instead, we may see 50 competing countries emerge, which would give free markets, and eventually a stateless society a fighting chance.

But first, let’s quickly review why Rome fell, and how America is in a similar place.

The Writing on the Wall for Rome and America

History.com summarizes eight main reasons why Rome fell, which I would suggest checking out. But the main reasons were, 1) “Invasion by barbarian tribes,” 2) “Economic troubles and over reliance  on slave labor,” 3) “The rise of the Eastern Empire” or splitting in two of the Roman empire, 4) “Over expansion and military overspending,” 5) “Government corruption and political instability,” 6) “The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the barbarian tribes,” 7) “Christianity and the loss of traditional values,” 8) “Weakening of the Roman legions.”

Without getting into a long discussion about the similarities between the current United States and Rome just before it collapsed, I would like to just point out a few highlights. Towards the end, Rome was “crumbling from within thanks to a severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened imperial coffers, and oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and poor.”

That quotation applies unaltered directly to the United States government. The United States is over $18 trillion dollars in debt, and while Bernie Sanders might have you believe the widening wealth gap is because of capitalism, the truth is that the government directly causes large wealth gaps by confiscating money through taxation and inflation, and upwardly redistributing it.

“At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With such a vast territory to govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare…As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair.” Again, I struggle to add anything. This very same situation grips the United States today. The endless wars and military expansion in the middle east could be the United States’ downfall. It has become more profitable to be a government contracted bomb maker than to invent new standard-of-living-raising technology.

“If Rome’s sheer size made it difficult to govern, ineffective and inconsistent leadership only served to magnify the problem…As the situation worsened, civic pride waned and many Roman citizens lost trust in their leadership.” I don’t think many Americans trust their leadership right now, but they just don’t know what to do to fix it! We have been scared into thinking government is the only way, somehow still better than markets, even as the empire crumbles under the inmates running the asylum from DC.

After the Hun invasion forced many Germanic tribes to flee their land, “[t]he Romans grudgingly allowed members of the Visigoth tribe to cross south of the Danube and into the safety of Roman territory, but they treated them with extreme cruelty.” I find this interesting as some have called for illegal immigrants to earn their citizenship through military service. This would seem to fit with the Roman plan, as many displaced Germanic tribes ended up fighting for Rome as mercenaries, and then eventually sacking Rome twice.

America also has refugees to deal with, caused by the wars which the U.S. created and escalated. This also leads to a loss of traditional values, which I am not saying is necessarily bad, but will certainly add to the troubles of keeping the American Empire afloat. For instance, a predominantly Spanish speaking area of the U.S. might want to split off to form its own little society.

But the Collapse of the American Empire Could Do More Good than Harm

This is the thing: saying all these things pose problems for the empire does not mean all these things pose problems for the American people. In fact, the American Empire is the biggest risk to our life, liberty, and property. The fear is that things will devolve into chaos in the absence of mammoth government. Now lessons from after the Roman fall might seem to suggest this is true.

The Dark Ages did indeed follow Rome’s fall. But these were conquered lands, which have historically felt turmoil when an invading empire departs. I would start by suggesting the actual United States territory would not devolve the same way conquered lands did under Rome. State governments would probably pick up the slack. It seems there may be a mixture of competition between states and rich landowners who may become like modern feudal lords.

According to Examiner:

Since the government and military broke down, people began searching for protection and access to resources. Rich landholders provided a respite for the desperate. The rich allowed the poor onto their lands and provided protection. In return, the poor worked the lands for the landowner and provided a portion of the crop to pay rent. This was the beginning of the feudal system.

At the time, peasants would seem to have had little options in terms of which Lord to work for. But these days, moving to gain protection from a better more fair “Lord” would be easier. Also, “as a result of several factors, the European economy degraded to barter,” which means it was hard to aggregate capital as a peasant, without a way to protect it. Today things like bitcoin give the opportunity to use alternative currencies in the event of a U.S. dollar collapse. Since these currencies would not be centralized and controlled by government or one corporation, it would be that much harder to hold economic power over others. If an entity with a lot of one type of currency became aggressive, simply refusing to accept or use that currency would take their power away.

My Bitcoin address

This could cause an equilibrium between government and industry, with people choosing who they think can do a better job of providing security and other services. If the government ended up oppressing people, powerful corporations could offer protection, and vice versa. Since companies, at their base level, offer a valuable product and must compete to attract customers, it would seem that they would be likely to outcompete government. This is because government is inherently violent, forces you to accept their services, and steals your money to fund them, meaning you cannot defund bad services.

Without a monolithic state to back up the aggression, smaller states would have to ease up on their oppression, allowing people the viable alternative of not participating in the government system. Without a centralized United States Currency (because it would almost certainly be one of the causes of collapse, or at least collapse with the rest of the government) it would be harder for government to have control over corporations, and corporations would have less to gain from taking control of a government.

Since people would be using voluntary currencies, this would make it more difficult for one state or corporation to aggregate vast amounts of wealth that allow them to monopolize with the same ease that the United States government does today. Using force would cost them more than they could gain from it.

What do you think? Is my assessment naive and overly hopeful? Or would this collapse lead to the regrowth of the economy into the conditions depicted in my fiction novel, “Anarchy in New England”?

Anarchy in New England Cover (FINAL)

It Is All About Consent (and not just when it comes to sex)

Is it ever okay to have sex with someone who has not consented? No! Of course not! Essentially everyone agrees that consent is required before having sex, apart from a few rapists who try to justify their aggression by blaming the victim.

Aggression is failure to secure consent before taking an action that damages an individual.

But when we talk about consent in every area of governance, victim blame is rampant, or even the standard.

A business owner consents to you working there, and you consent to doing the job for a prescribed price. Then the government says it is going to take 25-50% at least of what you earn. What, I didn’t agree to that?! “No it is okay, look at all these wonderful services they are providing you!”

No, it is okay for me to rape you, because I am really good at sex! You’ll enjoy it.

I buy a house with cash; it is mine right? Sure, just pay $4,000 to your local government every year. But I didn’t consent to that! “It’s called a social contract, your consent is not required, just being a living breathing human binds you. And anyway, we paved the road in front of your house.”

I took you out on a date and paid for dinner, so you are going to have sex with me. I don’t need your explicit consent, it is implied by your presence, and the fact that you accepted the dinner for which I paid.

If a person does not consent to their labor, their time, or their money being taken, then it should not be taken! It is as simple as that. Why is it so easy to see this when it comes to rape, yet people have no problem ignoring consent in every facet of governance?

No, a majority cannot consent for you. If the whole frat house votes for you to have sex, that does not mean you gave consent. And if an entire country votes that people who smoke weed, or use cannabis as medicine, should be jailed, the victim is still the person using weed! They did not agree to that law, they did not consent to having plants be banned from usage, they did not aggress on anyone by using the plant, and they certainly did not consent to being locked in a cage for violating such rules.

joejarvismeme

Now some would try to flip my argument about consent, and say that if society makes a law, and the law is broken, society is the victim. But this is victim blame. The non-aggressive party is being blamed for the aggressor’s actions. We defend the jailers and condemn the jailed because we’ve been hypnotized to think laws are more important than actual aggression. But if a law is not protecting someone from aggression, it is itself aggression: forcing people to do something, or forcibly prohibiting them from doing it, without gaining their consent.

“Well what if a rapist doesn’t consent to being punished?” He took, he did not ask. Therefore his victim will set the price of what he has taken. Whatever the price–life in prison, death, public flogging–he took that risk by aggressing. If you don’t discuss the terms before the forced transaction, you can’t complain when the bill comes.

Even when you vote for someone, get them elected, and then they pass a law that you must follow, this is still not consent! Because you consented to sex last week, does not mean the man can come in whenever he wants and rape you! Although you agreed to sex earlier, you can withdraw your consent at any time! (Of course this gets into some muddy water, because electing a politician is essentially enabling a rapist).

Saying people deserve to be ruled without consent because of the horrid way they act, is like saying “she deserved to be raped because of the slutty way she dressed”.

And then of course there is the whole, “Well without the government who would keep us safe, build the roads, bomb hospitals in the middle east, teach children, blah, blah, blah.” Yes, and without rapists, how would women ever get pregnant and procreate?

In short, the government is a rapist trying to justify their aggression by blaming the victims: us!

If there is a “rape culture” the government has created it. Anyone against rape cannot possibly be for government without being quite hypocritical. We must consent, or an action is simply unjustified aggression.


Can Individuals Delegate a Right They Don’t Have to the Government? -Video

Amazon.com – Read eBooks using the FREE Kindle Reading App


Jan: Can you properly delegate a right you do not have?

Sen. Inoue: You cannot tax your neighbor, but you can authorize me as a senator to vote for programs that will tax your neighbor…

Jan: Then you think that you can actually delegate a right you do not have? …It is interesting to me how the agent can have more power than the principle. If the principles are the people, and the source [of power] comes from the people, the individuals do not have the right to initiate force against others-

Sen. Inoue: As individuals-

Jan: Well, if they get together then all of the sudden they have the right?

Sen. Inoue: If they authorize the government to do so, yes. If they authorize the government to enter into a war and kill people, that’s a right.

Jan: Where does this right come from if it doesn’t come from the people?

Sen. Inoue: The people through the Constitution.

Jan: The Constitution was made by the people right? So then the people are the source of all legitimate power, so if the people did not have the right to initiate physical force against anybody, then the government cannot have- It seems like there’s a contradiction there as far as if you say that all legitimate governmental power is derived from the people, and you agree that the individual citizens do not have the right to initiate force against other citizens, then it would seem clear that they cannot delegate that right to the government.

Sen. Inoue: Why don’t we just leave it this way, we disagree.

What Jan Helfeld is saying is that if a citizen does not have the right to do something as an individual (like rob their neighbor), then what gives the government the right to rob his neighbor on the citizen’s behalf? If the government derives its power from the people, where does this extra power come from, that the people can never exercise as individuals?

What is so magic about government, that suddenly they can act on an individual’s behalf in a way that the individual could never act on his own? What is so magic about a group of individuals that allows them to rob their neighbor, or initiate force, when said force would always be illegitimate as an individual?

There’s nothing magic about it. It is wrong to initiate force as an individual, and it is also wrong to initiate force as a group, even with approval of the majority. The only legitimate way to take someone’s money (time, labor, wealth) is for them to voluntarily hand it over to you. Otherwise it is theft, even if the government is the robber.

Charity versus taxation is the difference between sex and rape.


Shooting Civilians Not Enough, Cops are Now Shooting Each Other Too

It has been a while since I have posted about the police, but yes, they are still murdering innocent people of all races, ages, and genders. Recently however, police incompetence has taught a few of the officers some lessons of their own. Some cops are getting a nice taste of what they routinely dish out to us peasants.

A police supervisor shot one of his minions who was undercover, supposedly because the supervisor missed a meeting and didn’t know the procedure for the drug bust.

The undercover cop bought $60 worth of drugs. Then he got shot 9 times by his colleague who hadn’t attended the briefing. If this was a citizen who bought $60 worth of drugs, and was shot to death, you would never have heard about it, because he would have “deserved it” according to the media, the police, and most sheeple. Also, the cop who shot him would never have been taken to court.

I’m glad it was a cop that got shot by this other cop and not an innocent person. The cop that got shot had conspired to rob and cage non-violent people. The cop who shot him had conspired to do the same, plus murder a non-violent “criminal”. They are feeling the consequences of their unjust violent actions, (funded by theft in the first place).

This should teach us two things: 1) cops have no value for human life when they can demonize their non-violent target as a druggy, 2) even if cops did care about people, and even if they only policed crimes with victims, they are often too incompetent to properly deliver the service.

To prove this point, I direct your attention to exhibit A- a case where the police were actually attempting to do their job; investigating a report of a suspicious person and possible break-in.

A man shot by police officers who went to the wrong Atlanta house ran bleeding outside where a neighbor heard him asking, “Why did they come in my house? Why did they shoot me? Why did they shoot my dog?”

It happened Monday night when officers arrived at the wrong Atlanta address after a report of suspicious activity, shot homeowner Christopher McKinley, killed his dog and “likely” shot a fellow officer, leaving him seriously wounded, authorities said Tuesday.

The most tragic part of this story is that they killed a nice, happy, family pet for no reason. Even if they had responded to the right house, did they think the dog had broken in? What is up with police shooting dogs for no reason? This should really scare people if the nature of those who go into police work enjoy killing innocent animals, just like serial killers.

The innocent man police shot is lucky to be alive, and the only consolation is that at least one of the officers knows how his victims feel after being shot by a fellow officer.

We have trigger happy sociopaths running around and telling us they are keeping us safe, but when they are called to actually do their job, they can’t even get the right house, resulting in the death of a pet, and attempted murder of the innocent homeowner. And even if it was the right house, they still would have killed the victims’ pet, and still gone in trigger-happy guns blazing for no reason.

Yet, if we suggest reform to the police system, we are labelled cop-haters by these thugs and their brainwashed supporters. I believe in the free market, so there will be protection and crime investigation if the market (the consumer) demands it. I do not need my money stolen to provide me this service–especially when the “service” endangers me more than the criminals they “protect” me from.

We need to open policing up to competition by abolishing all state monopolies on crime prevention and investigation, which includes government contracting to a private company. We need to be able to remove our money from bad agencies, and give it to good ones. Right now, the police who commit these atrocities are not properly punished, nor are the agencies defunded which hired the incompetent at best, possibly sociopathic officers.

At least when cops get shot by other cops, they are feeling the consequences of their unjust actions for once.

      

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?

joejarvisoilmeme

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.