So What is Aggression anyway?

At the heart of true libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Throughout the ages mankind has expressed understanding of the idea that we should “live and let live” to the extent that we can do so. Around 300 BC Epicurus told us that “natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefulness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another.”

“No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.” ~Murray N, Rothbard

Walter Block once said that the difference between libertarians and most people who give lip service to the non-aggression axiom is that libertarians really mean it.  We’re rabid about it and we make deductions from it. The way to be successful in analyzing a given situation, from a Libertarian perspective, is to keep your eye on the non-aggression axiom; never violate it no matter what. Of course, hand in hand with the non-aggression principle is the idea of property rights. One may not legitimately aggress against an innocent man nor his rightfully owned property. This solid core of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, is in many respects a kind of political corollary to the Golden Rule.

fight-1

On Twitter the other day some friends were talking about the non-aggression principle and the question of “what is aggression” came up. After all, it is all well and fine to be against aggression but to be against aggression means you have to know what aggression is in the first place. No?

So what is “aggression”? Aggression is the initiation of violence or the threatening of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of other people that physically affect an individual’s property or person. This includes force, fraud, and intimidation. It does not matter if the result of these actions is damaging to the individual or not, it is still considered aggression when the actions are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership or violate his property rights. Aggression is harmful behavior that is forceful, hostile, or attacking. I reject the definition used (often in the social sciences) that aggression is a response by an individual that delivers something unpleasant to another person. After all,  telling another person the truth is often unpleasant to them but that does not make it aggression! Leave it to the social sciences to undermine the clear meaning of a word.

It is easy to see that if I hold you up with a gun and take all your money that I have committed aggression against you. It is likewise easy to see that if I swindle you out of your money via subterfuge that I have committed aggression against you. Similarly, it is easy to see that if I deface your house in an act of vandalism that I have also committed aggression against your property rights. But what about verbal aggression? The Twitter conversation had Ken tweet that “I don’t mean simply verbal threats because that is obvious, I mean all forms of verbal aggression.” So what is “verbal aggression”?

It is difficult to nail down “verbal aggression” if we use the phrase in the modern usage of the “everyone is a victim” mindset of modern America. For the purposes of the non-aggression principle and libertarian law one must hold that any threat must be a credible one. If I say to you that I am going to blow you up with a bazooka as I stand in front of you unarmed, I have just made a non-credible threat. In terms of libertarian law I have not committed an actionable crime, but I certainly have disturbed the peace and tranquility! On the other hand, if I point a pistol at you I have committed an act of aggression without even saying a word!

One thing aggression is not is when I simply tell you my opinion. If I say that the new hair color you had done at the hair dresser today is not very faltering, or that it is downright horrible, I have not committed aggression. If I tell you that you are a damn idiot, I have not committed aggression. It is not true that every mean utterance by someone is aggression. Don’t get me wrong, I think that being mean is immoral and we should teach our young to be nice to people, but in terms of the Non-Aggression Principle we don’t include statements that are simply mean things to say. If we did we would have to round up everyone in all the middle schools at jail them! Let us keep our eye on the ball and remember that  any unsolicited actions of other people that physically effects an individual’s property or person is aggression, and not if that other person says we are a “poopy-head”. (a major insult in the kid world I understand)

Even though one can say mean things without violating the non-aggression principle let us not forget that intimidation is a violation. Intimidation is intentional behavior, physical or verbal, that would cause a normal, reasonable person to fear of injury or harm. I suspect that there are many different opinions of what constitutes intimidation and that will continue to cause some controversy — especially when children and parents are involved. I can only offer the observation that some children love to play the victim so be careful before you believe that every mean comment made to your child is “intimidation”.

As I re-read the above I suspect that I will revisit this topic again when time allows me to post more in-depth on this topic. Perhaps this coming summer should I live that long and WordPress lets me keep publishing these random musings. The idea of that dividing line between verbal intimidation and just being mean is one place that aggression becomes a little fuzzy. Thanks to Ken for bringing up the topic.

The Commandments of Rational Debate

Various similar lists of the 10 commandments of rational debate have been posted thousands of times on the net, and today it is my turn to post a list of commandments. Keep in mind that the list concerns rational debate and not rhetoric.

1. Do not attack the person or his character, but only the argument itself. (“Ad hominem”)

2. Do not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make their argument easier to attack. (“Straw Man Fallacy”)

3. Do not reduce the argument down to only two possibilities. (“False Dichotomy”)

4. Do not claim that just because something has occurred before something else then it must be the cause of the second thing. (“Post Hoc/False Cause”)

5. Do not argue your position by assuming one of its premises is true. (“Begging the Question”)

6. Do not claim that because a premise or argument is popular then it must be true. (“Bandwagon Fallacy”)

7. Do not argue that because of our ignorance at this point in time that your claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)

8. Do not assume “this” follows “that,” when there is no logical connection. (“Non sequitur”)

9. Do not appeal to an outside “experts” to claim support. (“Appeal to Authority”)

10. Do not claim moral authority as support for your argument. (“Moral high ground fallacy”)

Here is a link to the list of logical fallacies at Wikipedia.

skeptical-2011-featured

In scientific debates and political debates alike we should strive to remain logical and truthful at all times. In political debate we should look at reality and human nature and not at some Utopia that we dream of. With both Austrian Economics and Rothbardian political analysis we strive to understand reality and so logical debate is valued over emotional sputterings.

Learn the fallacies and learn to spot their use by others.

Militarization of the Police

I was asked a couple of weeks ago to say a few words about the graphic below by Zoey DeGarmo who posted it at arrestrecords.com. So, naturally I said I would be happy to post it here and say a few words about what the graphic means to me. I wish my schedule had let me get to it faster than I have. First the graphic and then a few words.

Police_Design03

 

 

After looking the graphic over I realized there was nothing I had not read before in it, but all that information in one place is powerful. Plus, that is a very professionally done piece of artwork. It communicates the problem very well in my opinion. The only problem I have is that this only scratches the surface. That the local police and its SWAT goon squads have become more and more militarized is very true, but it is also true that many federal agencies have also beefed up their “enforcement” capabilities. It is almost as if the central government is preparing for a civil war.

There have been those who claim that the central government has realized that it is headed toward hyper-inflation or default on its debt which could touch off a civil war since more than half of the nation receives some sort of welfare and lives at the expense of the minority of workers. If those welfare “entitlement” checks become worthless due to the money being worthless, I could see a full scale civil war erupting. So perhaps the preparations by the central government is an indicator of how much they realize that the situation has gone too far to salvage.

Regardless of the central government’s role in the all this, we can all agree that the local police forces around the country have become military units and that is very bad for all of us. Can this be stopped? I really don’t think there can be a rollback until the country falls apart. We have become the police state that the U.S.S.R. was back in its day and I predict the U.S.A is headed for the same fate. The question is: will the U.S. go to the trash heap of history in a bloodless revolution like the Russians pulled off or will we see another bloodbath like the War Between the States in the 1800s?

Time will tell my friends, but for now just be sure and tell your friends and family that the police are not your friends.

Insurance, Homes, and College Education

Guest Post by Mickey Ellison

Insurance, Homes, and College Education

Most people say that some things in life are just “so” expensive and the cost of those things will just continue to rise no matter what. If we want to buy a house, thank God there are banks and mortgage companies to give us a loan to make those houses a reality for us. There is also college tuition. Man, those costs are skyrocketing, and without student loans, very few would ever be able to afford college. And of course there is the cost of healthcare. If I didn’t have access to health-care insurance, I could never afford healthcare. Healthcare has gotten so expensive that it took a literal act of Congress to make it affordable for all of us.

What if I told you none of that is true, and that the very thing that you and I assume are making homes, healthcare, and college a possibility is what is making three things cost so much. Let’s take houses, healthcare, and college one at a time.

Houses:
Why has the cost of buying a home increased so much? Does it really cost more money to build a house that cost $20,000 in 1970 that now costs $200,000? Think logically about this. Has technology improved since 1970? Is it easier or harder today to chop down a tree, send it to a lumberyard, and cut it into two by fours? Did it take more time in 1970 to build a house than it does in 2014? I’ll answer those questions. Technology has improved significantly in the last 44 years. It’s easier to turn a tree into a two by four today than it was in 1970 and it definitely takes less time to build a house today than it did four decades ago. If one thinks logically, shouldn’t those three things alone make it cost less money to build the house? So why is it so expensive to buy a house today? Debt! Who benefits more from debt when buying a house, the bank or the borrower?

It’s really pretty simple to understand why a house costs so many more dollars today than it did in 1970. We deposit $1000 into the bank, and they magically loan out $10,000 that didn’t exist before you made the deposit. If today there was only $1000 available to buy the house, but tomorrow there was suddenly $10,000, do you think I could charge more for the house? That drives the cost of the houses up making need for more loans that continue to drive the cost of houses up even more, making even bigger loans necessary to buy a house. The solution is also simple. Stop borrowing money. This wouldn’t be good for the banks, but it would definitely bring down the cost of a home. We saw that exact thing happening in 2008, but the Federal Reserve and government put a stop to that by bailing out the banks for making bad loans, and the Fed has continued to make more and more money available to drive those prices back up. Would the price of a home dropped to a level where we could buy the home without a loan? We will never know since the bankers and politicians distorted the market.

College Tuition:

It appears to be a given that the cost of college is going to increase every year no matter what. Even the cost of a home dropped from 2008 to 2010, but according to USA Today, the average tuition at a 4 year public university increased by 15%. In one of the presidential debates in 2012 President Obama boasted about how he was making college educations more attainable by making Federal Student Loans easier to get and keeping the interest rates down. Has anyone stopped to think that the loans may actually be what is causing the cost to go up so much in the first place? Let’s see, if I have a product, say education, where the government is going to give out unlimited amounts of money in the form of student loans, what is my incentive to keep the price down? What a great thing if you run a college or university? What a great thing if you get to collect the interest on those loans for the next 20 years? What a great evil it is to tell our children that they must have a college education to succeed, then provide them unlimited money at age 18 to get that education, and make them slaves for much of their adult life to debt that they can’t even write off should the declare bankruptcy! Just like the houses, stop borrowing money for college and in time the price will go down!

HealthCare:

Now this is a hot topic today since we have ObamaCare! While I’m no fan of The Affordable Care Act, the law is nothing more than a symptom of the problem, and the central planners have never seen a symptom that they couldn’t fix. Except, they typically make the problem worse. I believe the problem is that most of us have no idea what medical care actually costs since we have all been told that we have to have health insurance most of our lives. Is the problem really that insurance premiums are too high or that the cost of medical services are too high. Seeking to “make” healthcare insurance more affordable does nothing to treat the problem. In fact, making insurance more available might cause the problem, the cost of healthcare, to become worse.

In healthcare there is what I call the “Unholy Trinity” of big government, big insurance, and big medical. Let’s think hypothetically here. If my focus is on the cost of my insurance, who’s focus should be on the cost of healthcare? You would think the insurance company would want to keep the costs down as much as possible right? Wrong! To keep it simple let’s say that I have an operation. On my insurance statement it shows that the surgery would have cost me $100k, but my insurance company was able to negotiate the price down to $50k which is what they pay. This is great because of the great negotiating power of my insurance company right? When in reality the surgery only really cost $10k, the hospital got paid $50k, and the hospital was able to write off the $50k that they didn’t get paid maintaining their not for profit status. The insurance company can make their money through premiums that we pay even though they paid $40k more for the surgery than it really should have cost. Visit www.surgerycenterok.com to find out what it really costs for many operations when they only take self-funded insurance plans and cash. This is a simplified version of the “Unholy Trinity”. The disease can never be cured if we only focus on the symptoms.

We have been so indoctrinated that we now believe that a little inflation is a good thing, the cost of college should always go up, and that medical care is too expensive. It doesn’t have to be this way, but fixing these lies will take people that are willing to question what they have been taught and start asking why and how! Why is it good for me, the individual, when my bread costs more this year than it did last year? How does paying $4 for a gallon of gas benefit me when 10 years ago, I could have bought gas for a $1? Why do I have to keep borrowing more and more money to buy a house or get a college education? Who does that benefit? Seek the answers to these questions and you will find that we have nothing close to a free market and we are being manipulated and because we have been indoctrinated so thoroughly that we believe this is all good for us. Stop borrowing money and THINK!

by Mickey Ellison

The nature of our opposition

As an enemy of the state I find my opposition is numerous beyond my abilities to count. I find opposition on the far left, the far right, in the middle, and from people whose politics defy being categorized. What these people all have in common is a deep belief that it is the state itself can be our salvation. Consider the “watermelons” (green on the outside and red on the inside) who want to use the state to force mankind back into a preindustrial state of being: they see the state as the ultimate salvation of life on this planet!

The  modern liberals “progressives” are by far the worst of the bunch as they are forever preaching that “the ends justify the means” and hence morality, ethics, honest debate, or any objective standard of behavior does not apply to them since they are trying to “save the world” and/or liberate mankind. I have been accused of being far to concrete and absolutist since I believe that there are, indeed, eternal truths that lead to an unchanging morality that is not relative to the situation at hand. There are things that are right and things that are wrong.

I find that many moderns claim that those who don’t believe that the end justifies the means are guilty of some sort of belief in a moral sense and code delivered by some deity either mystically or via some ancient revelation as in the Christian Bible. This, of course, means to them that I am sincerely deluded and they love to beat up on this straw-man version of where folks like myself find our morals. To the progressive as well as many other statists, morals just get in the way of whatever program they want to see enacted by the force and brutality of the state this week.

aa_live_and_let_liveBut the fact is that we can develop the whole of our morality from one simple axiom. That axiom is often called the non-aggression principle. By this we simply mean that we have no right at all to commit aggression against someone who has not aggressed against ourselves first.

The wiki at the Mises Institute defines the non-aggression principle thusly:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance. (link)

The Mises Institute wiki entry goes on to say that the non-aggression principle has a long tradition that stretches back into the mists of time but that market anarchists and other schools of libertarianism have done the most to popularize the principle in these modern days. Many, such as Rothbard himself, have pointed out that non-aggression is a basic part of philosophical Taoism and has been for at least three thousand years.

What is special about the non-aggression principle? It is simply a statement of basic fairness that we all know deep in our hearts. This principle allows mankind to cooperate with one another and to build society which is the hallmark and basis for our very survival. In the early days, the European colonists of North America thought that banishment from the community was tantamount to a death sentence and most of the time they likely were right. Humans must cooperate with each other to find the peace, prosperity, and enjoyment of life that we all seek. This cooperation must be voluntary and based on mutual respect and trust — and only the non-aggression principle is going to serve us in this regard. The servant and his master do no cooperate because of mutual, voluntary trust but rather the servant fears the master and the relationship is based on force, fraud, and intimidation.

Force, fraud, and intimidation are the calling card of all states and their minions. The record of the state throughout history has been one of death, destruction, injustice, brutality, greed, murder, torture, and all the rest. The record of the state serves to prove to us that there is a better way. That better way is non-aggression leading to voluntary, mutual, beneficial cooperation among people.

The great philosopher, historian, and economist Murray Rothbard developed his entire “anarcho-capitalist” system from the simple starting point of non-aggression. To me, the starting point of non-aggression (or do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is the ultimate tool to answer any problem of morals or ethics. I find the there is no “moral relativism” in the moral questions of life. Moral relativism (like the end justifies the means) is the tool of those who seek to brutalize others even if they claim the brutalization is for your own good. (it never is)

I submit to my friends and foes alike, that there is one simple and unchanging rock that you can use to discover the deeper truths of how we should live and that rock is the non-aggression principle. You should meditate on that principle long and hard. Apply it in your daily life. Only bad Karma will come from violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

Private Property in Society

There has been a lot of back and forth lately between libertarian supporters of property rights and those who call themselves libertarian (or even anarchist) who think that no one may “own” anything. And so, this post was born in my mind to address a few aspects of the nature of private property and society.

Is there any social problem which, at its core, is not produced by a disrespect for the inviolability of property interests? Wars, inner-city gang conflicts, environmental pollution, the curricula of government schools, the “war on drugs,” restrictions on free expression, affirmative action programs, monetary inflation, same-sex marriages, realty, eminent domain, taxation, gun control, displaying the “Ten Commandments,” violent crime, rent control, terrorism, government surveillance of telephone and computer communications, zoning laws and urban planning, prayer in schools, government regulation of economic activity, . . . the list goes on and on.

In each such instance, conflicts are created and maintained by government policies and practices that forcibly deprive a property owner of decision making control over something he or she owns. Whether the ownership interest is in oneself, or in those external resources that a person requires in order to promote his or her interests or to otherwise express one’s purpose in life, the state is inevitably at war with property owners. ~ Law Prof. Butler Shaffer

One of the problems that arise is that most people don’t understand the definition of ownership in the first place. Ownership means that you have total control over the use of a thing. You may use it, give it away, leave it to whomever you choose when you die, or exercise control over the property for any other purpose. In this meaning of ownership we see that every state that has ever existed was socialistic to some degree or the other.  No matter what form the state’s government took, the state claimed the rightful authority to control the individual’s property anytime it saw fit to do so.

The communist system is based on the premise that the state owns all productive assets and that there is no private ownership at all. Other socialist systems nationalized only certain tools of production and communication, at least openly, but all socialist systems asserted the right of the state to take anything at any time from any subject under its rule. Fascism is a socialistic system in which title to property remains in private hands, but control is exercised by the state and always remember that control is ownership. In reality, the modern U.S. is not all that unlike the fascist systems of the past.

The question of how property is to be owned and controlled and who has this control is the most fundamental question we must address because the answer tells us whether the state owns us and we are slaves, or if we own ourselves as free men and women. We hear many claims that the communist regimes of the U.S.S.R. were the polar opposite of the fascist Nazi regime and most people do think of these two regimes as polar opposites;  but they were exactly the same in that the state claimed total control over the lives and property of every single subject within its geographic borders. Both systems thought that no one could exist outside of the state. These two states were both extreme examples of the totalitarian state — modern real world examples of dystopia.

All political systems are wars against the private ownership of property but most desire to hide that fact and so build up myths that make it appear like the people are able to “own” property and personal items. The state does this by excluding property rights from almost every political argument or policy. For example, if a company pollutes a river and thus harms people downstream, the company will face sanctions for breaking the law of the state and harming the environment, but in a just society it would be the owners of property downstream that would bring suit against the company for damages to their righfully owned property.

Ludwig von Mises once wrote that private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental institution of the market economy. He wrote that private ownership was the institution that characterizes the market economy and if it was absent then there could be no question of a market economy. The U.S. is a country that pretends to be a market economy but, in fact, is a crony-capitalist or corporatist economy.

We could go down a list of “social” problems and see that each one is easily solved if there is private ownership of all things, but becomes intractable if the matter rests in the hands of the state. One of the most important examples is the difference between a crime committed against a victim like murder, rape, assault and so forth and a “victim-less crime” like drug use, prostitution, gambling and so on.  Victim-less crimes are an assault against the property rights and liberty of the people. I have every right in the world to bet my money on a pony if I chose to do so. The criminalization of any voluntary action is a violation of individual property interests.

Should prayer be taught in schools? What about the new Common Core State Standards for Math and Language? If there were no government schools and all education was a private mater then there would be no controversy at all. It would be a matter of the family’s choice on how and were to have their children educated.

We should all know about the economic problem often called “the tragedy of the commons” were “public” property is mismanaged and overused while private property is maintained and used as wisely as the owner can. The state can not manage anything as well as the highly interested private owner can, nor can the minions of the state even have access to the vast array of information that is available. What over 300 million Americans know by daily observation and experience is not available to a relatively small, finite bureaucracy in the capital.

Individual liberty and social order are the two sides of the same coin. Individual liberty can not give rise to the voluntary and mutually beneficial division of labor that leads to social order and stability without the basis of private property.  If “everyone owns a thing” then in reality no one owns it, but in fact the criminal gang called the state does. The modern Americans who call themselves “liberal” (but are anything but that) love to claim that they are working for “social justice” by using the state to impose their vision upon the rest of us by force, fraud and intimidation. In reality, they are just making all of use poorer than we would otherwise be as they make themselves feel good. As the wag once said, it is easy to be very generous with other people’s money.

6a00d83452719d69e2014e86055c29970d-800wiWe have the situation were there are “things” and “land” on this earth that have economic value because people need or desire them. We have far more needs and desires than we do things, so there must be some way to balance out the needs and desires of the many — a hard task for anyone or any group to do. The way to do it is to let the free market and private property sort out the needs and desires via the free economy where the price signal will properly ration these “things”. It is only through the peaceful market rather than by the force of the state’s guns that we may achieve the maximum peace, prosperity, and pleasure in this world.

If you find someone who claims to be an “anarchist” or a “libertarian” who is against private ownership, then you have found one who is deluded or untruthful. There is no freedom without private ownership of property. Maximum liberty is when there is no state at all and all property is in the hands of individuals or groups of individuals.

What you owe to the state

power-to-the-people-belt-buckle_9097

What do you owe to the United States of America just because you were born here and are a citizen?

“Nobody is born with a mandatory obligation to invisible lines on a map. Our fundamental obligation is to ourselves, our families, and the people that we choose to let into our circles…not to a piece of dirt that’s controlled by mob-installed bureaucrats.” ~ Simon Black

The biggest problem with any state is that it is the one institution that we allow a most peculiar exemption from all of the moral laws that guide us in our dealings with one another. We all know that the world is a very complex place with billions of people reacting to each other every day. We can not predict all of the ramifications of our various actions and so we have moral rules to guide us all. We have a deep sense of what is right and what is fair as we observe individuals dealing with one another in their daily affairs. Do I have any right to impose my will on my neighbor, who is doing me no harm?  Of course not! And my neighbor has no right to do me harm as long as I do not aggress against him — not even if he joins with a majority and passes a law that says he may do so.

The state is not some magical entity but it is simply an organization of individual human beings. There is no reason to believe that “the end justifies the means” for the state when it is morally wrong for the single individual or for non-state groups. If we set out to do things “for the greater good” believing that the ends justify the means, then we may realize to our horror that we have ushered in great evils. Recall that the definition of “ironic evil” is the evil that good men do as they try their best to do good. It is a law of nature and a close cousin of “the law of unintended consequences”.

The state is nothing more than a group of men and women running a criminal monopoly that uses force, fraud, and coercion to make everyone else to buy services from them. Even if they are correct and their old document that you or I never signed, called the Constitution, gives them permission to rob and brutalize the population, does that give them to moral right to do so? Of course not. They have a monopoly on interpreting and applying the constitution which they claim is a contract, but I never agreed to that contract and there is no impartial court to go to with contractual disputes anyway.They enforce the constitution with bullets.

Ideas are the motive power that produces human progress (or lack of same) and shapes the world. Ideas are more powerful than armies. This is why the state spends so much effort propagandizing us to get us to believe they have some rightful monopoly on the use of force and that only the minions of the state can decide what everyone must do, say, and think. Government employees think they are an elite class; above everyone else. Their wishes and opinions become the law while our wishes become crimes without prior approval by the state. The laws of the state are a club to beat the population and not a shield of protection. As long as the American people continue to believe in the idea that their most formidable enemies are terrorists from distant lands or other countries rather than their own government here at home they will continue to lose freedom and wealth to the very entity they so wrongly believe exists for their protection.

Historically criminality was seen to mean that both intent and at least one victim was required, but today criminality means whatever the minions of the state say is not allowed. We all have a clear idea of what it means when one party commits aggression against another’s person or property and that is easy for everyone to understand, but no one can keep up with the millions of capricious and conflicting rules and regulation of the state. The state’s millions of rules and regulations means that each of us is a criminal in some way and the state could use some aspect of its millions of regulations to trip us up any time government minions choose to do so.

There is no state rule, regulation or economic calculus that can replace each individual’s plans for his daily needs and desires. The man left to freely make is own decisions is the best man for that task and there are no free men without self-ownership. The state is the largest stumbling block to the people’s welfare that there has ever been, so why do we think we owe anything other than our animosity to the very group who does us the most damage?

What do I owe the criminal state? Nothing, other than a lasting hatred for its uncountably many crimes against men, women, and children.