Peace and Equality Cannot Exist With a State

It is ironic that some people who claim to hold peace and equality as the ultimate goal for human civilization think they can get there by using the government. But government, by its very nature, is incompatible with both.

Firstly, the government, at its core, is funded by violence: theft they call taxation, enforced ultimately at the point of a gun. Secondly a country with a government is made up of people who make the rules (government) and people who must follow the rules (citizens). The haves and the have nots, if you will, i.e. inequality.

Peace cannot be created through violent aggression. Equality cannot be achieved through elevating some to master over their fellow man.

It is ridiculous to think a government could create peace, when a government cannot exist without violence. All government power is derived through violence. At the end of the day, every action government takes is backed up by a gun, a cage, and the threat of imprisonment or death.

It is absurd to think equality could be created by an institution that depends on inequality to exist. Someone who takes my money by force is not my equal. Someone who can invade my home without provocation, permission, or punishment is not my equal. People wielding the power and violence of government could never be considered equal to the people they control. If there is a political class, if there is a government, there cannot be equality.

This is simple logic. Peace and Equality are incompatible with government.

While government exists, peace cannot.

While government exists, equality cannot.


Should I Trust The Government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Government is Incompatible with Peace and Equality

It is ironic that some people who claim to hold peace and equality as the ultimate goal for human civilization think they can get there by using the government. How brainwashed must people be to believe government could create peace or equality? Government, by its very nature, is incompatible with both.

This is because the defining characteristic of government is that it does not compete, it monopolizes. It does not earn, it takes. The government cannot be funded except by stealing money at the point of a gun AKA violence. And if you resist, it gets even more violent. Peace cannot be created through violent aggression. There will be no peace until initiating force stops. And if there is no initiation of force, there is no government as currently defined.

And it is even more absurd to think equality could be created by an institution that depends on inequality to exist. Someone who takes my money by force is not my equal. Someone who can invade my home without provocation, permission, or punishment is not my equal. We literally vote for people to be in charge of us, or we don’t vote, and people are still in charge of us. People wielding the power and violence of government could never be considered equal to the people they control. Again, if there is a political class, if there is a government, there cannot be equality.

This is simple logic. Peace and Equality are incompatible with government.

While government exists, peace cannot.

While government exists, equality cannot.


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.

War is Peace

big-brotherIt is always amusing, and unsettling, when politicians mimic what happens in books that were written to warn the populace about such politicians. A California democrat has introduced a bill in the house to create a new department complete with a new cabinet position: The Department of Peace-building. Being a fan of George Orwell’s 1984, I could not help but think of Oceania’s Ministry of Peace. In the novel about a dystopian society, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of keeping Oceania in a perpetual state of war, in order to use up the excess resources of society, therefore keeping people in a constant state of struggle, which leaves them little time to learn about the true nature of their government.

The Ministry must maintain a delicate balance in its wars against East Asia and Eurasia (depending on the day) in order not to tip the scales in favor of one country, or against another. War is fought in a no-man’s-land Africa, with Oceania propaganda reporting constant battle victories, all attributed to their fearless leader, Big Brother. The name of the department makes sense in the novel, because citizens have been taught doublethink. Doublethink is the practice of holding and whole-heartedly believing two contradictory ideas, such as war is peace, which allows the department to be called the Ministry of Peace.

If the bill is passed, and the U.S. gets its very own Department of Peace-building, it will be tasked with developing policies and strategies to prevent violence, according to the Daily Caller article.

The department would work with other agencies, sharing peace findings and assisting the international community in peace endeavors, including fostering conflict resolution initiatives.

The department would also create a four-year Peace Academy in the model of the military service academies, and offer grants and incentives for peacebuilding initiatives. The Secretary will also encourage Americans to observe and celebrate “Peace Days.”

I think this department could easily set the stage for the Department of Defense to team up with the Department of Peace-building to keep us in a perpetual state of war. Currently it takes a bit of doublethink to believe that the offense strategies of our military provide us with a good defense, so we are already moving in an Orwellian direction. The only problem is that people are growing tired with our perpetual wars in the middle east, so what better way to keep the wars going than with a Department of Peace-building. This way, once the American populous becomes tired with war, we can send in the peace-builders who will employ their peace strategies. These strategies will involve disarmament, which will set the stage for the next strongman to come in and wield his power. At this point we are ready to pull back the peace-builders, and send in the defenders. Rinse and repeat, and we will be in perpetual war.

Don’t believe my analysis? Check out the consequences of peace-building before WWII, according to Thomas Sowell.

An even larger array of the intellectual elite in the 1930s opposed the efforts of Western democracies to respond to Hitler’s massive military buildup with offsetting military defense buildups to deter Hitler or to defend themselves if deterrence failed.

“Disarmament” was the mantra of the day among the intelligentsia, often garnished with the suggestion that the Western democracies should “set an example” for other nations — as if Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was likely to follow their example.

As a result of this failure to prepare for war, American pilots needlessly died in the beginning stages of WWII, because of inferior aircraft. Likewise many more American tanks were destroyed, and their inhabitants killed, than German tanks, because Germany had built up their armory, while the peace-building policies of America meant scaling back their arms. In the age of tanks and planes, this meant more soldiers losing their lives. In the age of Nuclear bombs, it could mean whole cities being destroyed before a counter attack can halt the carnage.

This could be achieved if the Department of Defense and Department of Peace-building work lockstep to ensure that the scales are not tipped to one side by too much. If we build up too much military might, we risk winning the wars outright, and there will be no other way to destroy the nations resources in order to keep the proles from rising. If we completely disarm ourselves, then other countries will take over, and the people in power will have lost it. The best plan for the leaders of America to emulate Oceania, is to keep one side fighting for war, and the other fighting against it. Never too weak, never too strong. Never victory, never defeat.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” -George Orwell, 1984