A Free People Cannot Be Conquered

Without the central machinery of government already in place, what exactly can an outside enemy conquer and control? While there is still the potential for plunder, in an anarchic set up of society, there would be no way for a gang to assert their authority over a free people.

This is a main criticism when people hear that you want no government: “but what if a cartel comes in and sets up a government?” So worst case scenario for eliminating government is that we end up with a government again? Interesting.

But while we would still need a market for repelling invasions of theoretical armies set on rape and looting, there would be no such risk of a central takeover. Because there would be no central thing to take over. Currently, couldn’t you imagine ISIS marching into Washington with some heads on stakes and telling the government they are in control now? Is your congressman going to tell him no? Nah, mine niether. Mine would probably beg to be the new head of the IRS (Islamic Revenue Service) for the USI (United States of Islam).

Then the attackers could just issue their orders, and the hierarchy we have created through the America government would creak back to life under new management. Except now cops would be telling you to praise allah instead of praise the state. But basically it would be the same thing. More beheadings, fewer shootings I would think.

So the scary possibility that our thieving murdering gang of masters would be replaced with a different murderous gang is in fact more likely now than it would be in a decentralized free land, where no one is forcibly beholden to another.

What would ISIS do without a government to take over? Walk into every single house, and say, we are in charge now? Because a third of those houses are going to shoot back. ISIS may be able to currently subject unarmed people used to being oppressed, but it would not go so well if the people were armed or free: if they were armed and free, forget about it. 100 million of those people that currently submit to the authority of the USA are armed, most with more than one gun. The only reason that is possible, observes Larken Rose, is:

Right now, millions of people are PROUD to be forcibly subjugated and robbed. They call it being a “law-abiding taxpayer.” That is the ONLY reason that a group of about 100,000 bureaucrats (the IRS), only about 2,000 of whom are even armed, can continually rob a couple HUNDRED MILLION Americans every year (tens of millions of THEM armed), to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars every year. Any gang which tried to pull that off with those resources, but WITHOUT their victims imagining them to be “authority,” would be fish food within the week.

Right now, ISIS has at most 50,000 fighters. That’s one ISIS fighter for every 2,000 armed men and women in the USA. Does ISIS have ironman suits? If not, how is one fighter going to keep 2,000 armed resisters in line after the “take over”? The only possible way for a foreign enemy of that size to threaten America is if we already have a centralized group of controllers in power who can simply hand off their reigns to the new oppressors.

The USA has the most powerful military, probably in history, yet they cannot even beat some militants in the mountains of Afghanistan. Russia has got over 3 million soldiers and a crap-load of rusty tanks. Still, they are outnumbered 1 to 10 by armed Americans. The militia style protection of one’s homeland is an effective structure of tyrannical resistance that requires no central organizing authority.

It is another market response. If Russia invaded the east coast, people from California might not come with their guns to fight, but people from Kentucky probably would. And if Russia reached Colorado, people from California would indeed see the writing on the wall, and wish to repel an invasion before it reached their territory. But no invading enemy would even get that far invading a free people. If they decided to go house to house and assert their power, there would be a handful of dead soldiers at every one of the homes. By the time they reached 1 million armed resisters, just 1% of the armed population of the USA, there would be millions of dead invaders and zero moral.

An outside power cannot sustain the personnel and equipment to subject 100,000,000 armed people to their rule, even when those resistors are spread across the vast acreage of the current United States. And even though there would still technically be the opportunity to plunder, a looting force would have to be much smaller than an invading force in order for the spoils to be worth it. This is because invading armies generally use more supplies than they conquer.

So essentially the same outcome would come from an attempted marauding of a coastal city. The first attack might be relatively successful before an entire city of armed free men and women ventilate the attackers. The next attackers will not choose that city, and the first attackers won’t be attacking anyone else.

In short, it would be easier for a foreign enemy to conquer the United States now, with all its central authority in place, than to conquer a free people living in the same geographical area of the current USA. And since the worst case scenario for having no government is that a government is set up in the vacuum (unlikely since they wouldn’t have time to condition us to accept their authority), it would seem there is not much to lose. The only thing that currently keeps us beholden to a small group of conquerers is our submission to our masters, based on their perceived “authority”.

Islamic State Just Set Up A Government of which Statist Americans Dream

Reading an article on MSN News about the Islamic State in northern Syria, it became apparent to me: ISIS has set up a classic example of government, and it’s not too bad as governments go! Now I am only half kidding… while there are plenty of negatives to the Islamic State, it would be subjective to call those worse than the atrocities committed in and outside America by the government of the U.S.A.

If you follow this blog, you probably know by now that I see real merit in the possibility of a society organized without government. That is why I want to highlight some similarities between ISIS and the USA. If people think the Islamic State is bad, they should also realize these same negatives exist in various potencies within our own government.

The group famous for its beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions provides electricity and water, pays salaries, controls traffic, and runs nearly everything from bakeries and banks to schools, courts and mosques.

While its merciless battlefield tactics and its imposition of its austere vision of Islamic law have won the group headlines, residents say much of its power lies in its efficient and often deeply pragmatic ability to govern.

Well they may be murdering people… but without them who would keep the electricity on, provide water, build the roads, and teach the children? Same goes for ISIS! Ba-zing! I’ll be here all week.

…even activists opposed to the group described how it had built up a structure similar to a modern government in less than a year under its chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Reuters journalists are unable to visit the area for security reasons.

Well, to be fair, it is probably safer for journalists than St. Louis.

…the group “has restored and restructured all the institutions that are related to services,” including a consumer protection office and the civil judiciary, the resident said.

Was it not Senator Elizabeth Warren who helped to start the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which spies on, sorry, helps us by keeping track of our credit card transactions? And how might the Islamic State be making sure consumers are protected properly?

Prices are also kept low. Traders who manipulate prices are punished, warned and shut down if they are caught again.

The group has also imposed Islamic taxes on wealthy traders and families. “We are only implementing Islam, zakat is an Islamic tax imposed by God,” said a jihadi in Raqqa.

Guys, guys, the tax was imposed by God, okay? And it is just going to effect the super wealthy, because at some point, I think they have earned enough. Also greedy businessmen are not paying their fair share, and are totally gouging the consumers, so they need a government to set prices and make sure no one is being taken advantage of. And honestly, the Islamic State ain’t so bad! Look what they do with the proceeds of their holy taxes:

Fighters receive housing – including in homes confiscated from local non-Sunnis or from government employees who fled the area – as well as about $400 to $600 per month, enough to pay for a basic lifestyle in Syria’s poor northeast.

One fighter said poor families were given money. A widow may receive $100 for herself and for each child she has, he said.

What a coincidence, I was just blogging about how the U.S. confiscates homes from political dissidents and awards them to our fighters! We call it civil asset forfeiture. Who knew we had so much in common with the Islamic State! I’m starting to feel better about them already.

The group has also invested heavily in the next generation by inducting children into their ideology. Primary, secondary and university programs now include more about Islam.

The group also accepts women who want to fight – they are trained about “the real Islam” and the reasons for fighting.

Oh lordy, in America we don’t induct, we simply allow the government to choose what the children will learn and keep them locked up in government institutions for 12 years so that they will fit into society better. But we don’t indoctrinate! But hey at least ISIS does what it does for the children; and in northern Syria there may be a civil war, but at least there’s no war on women!

Reflecting Islamic State’s assertion that it is a government – rather than simply a militant group that happens to govern – Baghdadi has also separated military operations from civilian administration, assigning fighters only as police and soldiers.

Hahaha oh my god, I’m dying over here! “Rather than simply a militant group that happens to govern”. What the hell is the difference? And that is the point I am trying to make here. Men pointing guns at us run America, and men pointing guns at them run the Islamic State. Oh, so they have a slightly different brand of state control? They govern a little different, a little harsher, in methods we are unaccustomed to? Here in America we prefer, “a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand” (Neil Young).

It’s all the same, and when you consent to being governed, you are just as likely to end up with ISIS as you are with the government of the U.S.A. The problem is that we allow a certain group of people to initiate force against innocent civilians, and we say it is okay for the sake of order, for the sake of government. It is never okay to allow aggression by one group of society, whether that unprovoked aggression ends with people beheaded for worshipping the wrong god, or locked in a cage for smoking a joint.