Market Anarchism

I find that many people that I know on social media call themselves “libertarian” and yet seem to miss the whole point of the thing. To be a libertarian means that you reject the coersive aggression into the lives of the people by the entity called “The State” that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its geographical boundaries. In other words, a libertarian is a “live and let live” kind of person who thinks voluntary cooperation among people is the standard we should strive for.

What is a libertarian? From the Mises Wiki we see:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] that views respect for individual choice and individual liberty[2] as the foundation of the ideal society, and therefore seeks to minimize or abolish the coercive actions of the State as that is the entity that is generally identified as the most powerful coercive force in society.[3][4] Broadly speaking, libertarianism focuses on the rights of the individual to act in complete accordance with his or her own subjective values,[5] and argues that the coercive actions of the State are often (or even always) an impediment to the efficient realization of one’s desires and values.[6][7] Libertarians also maintain that what is immoral for the individual must necessarily be immoral for all state agents, and that the state should not be above the natural law.[8][9] The extent to which government is necessary is evaluated by libertarian moral philosophers from a variety of perspectives.[10][11]

The “libertarian” label is now used since the “liberal” of “Classical Liberalism” came to mean the opposite of liberty after the socialists started calling themselves “liberal” decades ago. If one looks at the liberals of the 18th and 19th century he will see where the libertarians came from; their heritage. I once saw a writer claim that it all boils down to the assertion that all libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle. I think that is a fair litmus test, after all, the only way to minimize coercive actions in society is to try to make everyone adhere to the non-aggression principle.

There has developed over time the notion that the very nature of the state prevents the state from being able to follow the non-aggression principle and therefore we must reject it. That leaves anarchism which is defined as having no monopoly ruler. So very many then ask us, “what in the world happens then”? They think that gangs of roving bands will rape, rob, and pillage the people of every town. What force will keep the peace?

There are various labels for the nature of the society that we envision, but “market anarchy” is as good as any and some say it is better than most. It is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of a market society. These functions are now unjustly and inefficiently monopolized by the brutal, coercive, aggressive State. The term “market” turns a lot of people off as they are trained to hear “Wall Street Banksters” when they hear “market”. But here we just use the term “market” as in “free market” to mean the voluntary exchange of goods and services among willing trading partners free of coersive intervention.


Market Anarchy can be defined as “the doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.” In its essence anarchism is a negative in that it holds that the state (some say “government”) is evil and should be abolished. Other than this doctrine it would be difficult to list the many various beliefs that all anarchists hold. What will come after the state is defeated could take many different forms and there have been various groups predict or advocate various ideas.

Anarchists see a common thread behind most of mankind’s problems, namely the state. After all, we saw a hundred million people murdered by various governments around the world during th 20th century. This is an endless historical pattern. The state arises and then the rulers and their minions live by looting and enslaving the population. These ruling classes have tended to use their ill-gotten gains to build armies and then wage wars for various reasons … mostly false ones. Even when not at war with some other state a nation’s government is continually looting the people and making their lives poorer than they otherwise would have been.

Market anarchy has been more broadly known as “anarcho-capitalism” and I use the two terms as synonyms. Market anarchists believe that in an anarchist society people would expand private property to encompass the entire social realm. While no anarcho-capitalist has ever denied the right of people to voluntarily pool their private property and form cooperatives, jointly owned land, worker-owned firms, or communes — they believe that these attempts at private socialism will fail as they always have in the past.  Market anarchist see private property as the bedrock of an anarchist society. They also believe that several property, including business organizations like corporations, are not only perfectly legitimate but likely to be the predominant form of economic organization under anarchism. Market anarchists generally place little value on equality, believing that inequalities in income and wealth are not only perfectly legitimate, so long as the means of getting the wealth was legitimate under the non-aggression principle, but are the natural consequence of human freedom. They believe that different people have different beliefs, habits, talents, and desires — there are vast natural differences among people.

Many people such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Butler Shaffer, Bob Murphy, and Walter Block have written about the free market’s ability to provide legal and protection services as all market anarchists believe. Most of the recent prominent market anarchy (or anarcho-capitalist) writers have been academic economists and have tried to spell out the workings of their preferred society in rather great detail but the simple message is that the state’s government is now abusing you to a great extent and that only by eliminating the state may we live in peace, prosperity, and voluntary cooperation.

The bedrock of freedom and liberty is the right to own and control property. If the state or the collective can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home then you are not free nor do you really own your home since “ownership” means control over the use and disposition of a thing. At the present time government agents of the state can invade your home by breaking down your doors, kill your dog, tear up the house, and terrorize your family all at their whim. What, you still think the 4th amendment means anything? Your property belongs to the state and so do you yourself. The state owns you: you are enslaved.

Market anarchists can not tell you exactly how a world without a monopoly on force and brutality called the state would look like; but we can tell you that it would be vastly better than the evil we are living under today.

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. ~H. L. Mencken

Withdraw your support of the state.


Unending national emergencies and the nature of the state

The unending national emergencies of the present age are the natural outcome of the doctrine that the President has near-dictatorial powers during and emergency. Even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the danger of using emergences to give tyrannical power to the Executive and the court derided Lincoln’s theory of supposedly constitutional dictatorship by saying in Ex Parte Milligan (1866):

“The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and it covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances.  No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government.”

Even the Supreme Court in those days understood that if politicians can get away with declaring themselves dictators under the guise of a “national emergency” then there would be a never ending series of such emergencies. And what emergency is greater than war? Thus we have in the present day a never ending “war on terror” along with a series of other “wars” like the one the plant food CO2, the one on people using whatever drug they choose, and government’s new war on privacy.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken


The main hobgoblin of our present time is no longer the “evil empire” of the USSR as it was in my youth, but rather the “evil” Muslim and his so-called “desire to destroy America” (as if we were not already doing a bang-up job of it). Or at least that is what we are told over and over by the State and its minions. I am told that Disney World in Orlando, Florida would be ashes if it were not for our military killing innocent men, women and children in far away lands. Yes indeed, they would mount camels that can swim and cross the Atlantic and invade the USA. Horrors!

Government today has grown far too strong, interventionist, and invasive to be remotely safe for the people. There are no longer any citizens in the modern world, rather, it seems that there are only subjects to be ordered about, looted, and brutalized. The state consists of a gang of men and women exactly like you and me except they live by looting those who can produce to give to those who are parasites while taking a healthy cut themselves.

The most dangerous man to the US government is the one who is able to think things out for himself, like Edward Snowden did. These people can put aside the current myths and taboos to think rationally and then they inevitably come to the conclusion that the State is a gang of thieves writ large just as Murray Rothbard said years ago. These men will try to change the situation if they have the temperament and guts for that sort of thing, or they will try to spread discontent among those who do have that temperament. Either way, the discontent is growing and the state will fall before long. Ed Snowden and his NSA revelations did more to undermine the legitimacy of the State than most anyone in memory.

Modern Americans tend to regard the State as a quasi-divine, selfless organization from which all good things in life flow. The State by its very nature can not give you loving care as it was build to use force, fraud, and intimidation to loot the masses for the benefit of the few. It is know for demagogic appeals to the masses to frighten them for votes. Many individuals do need guidance from experts, but going to the state is like seeking advice from your wife’s lawyer in a nasty divorce case — it will always lead to a bad end.

It is absurd how many people think they are served by a coercive, demagogic apparatus when it exists to further its own. The ruling elite and their loyal minions will use fear, an endless series of imaginary hobgoblins, propaganda, and myth to keep you in line. The murder of millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children in country after country just to keep you subservient is the nature of the state.

You may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects in a manner first suggested by Murray Rothbard. Do this by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely—those against private citizens or those against itself? It is obvious that the state punishes crimes against itself far more often and far more harshly than crimes against mere people.

It is time to withdraw your consent to be governed by such an evil entity as the state.

The constitutionalism of Ron Paul

By the “constitutionalism of Ron Paul” I mean his many calls for returning to the original interpretation of the constitution as well as following it rather than ignoring it. He spent a lifetime in politics calling for the US to follow the constitution as well as his two runs for the GOP nomination for president. It seems to me that Ron Paul was always after an even greater goal than the US government following the original interpretation of the constitution. I think he was after a libertarian society and the quickest way to get there would be by first following the constitution and making the vast cuts in government that following the constitution would require. The quickest way to get to a libertarian society would be by making as much of government as possible optional or voluntary.


We need to forge a wide social agreement on the concept of voluntary self-government and tolerance and this means making secession at the personal level more and more of a reality. We live in a police state and empire at the present time and the brutality of the state grows with each passing day. Surely we can all agree that moving towards the laissez-faire economy and the non-intervention of government in our lives that was the hallmark of the first decades of this country would be a great movement towards real and total liberty. Even if it is difficult to see how cutting government down to size and making it follow the constitution might be accomplished, we can certainly agree that it is important as one of our goals in the liberty movement. This goal contrasts starkly with any more spreading of the government’s brutality, involuntaryism, coercion and cronyism. The power and reach of the US government has spread into more and more areas of life, here and across the world and it is time to put an end to the growth and start to reduce the long arm of the state.

Economics is simple really. Nearly the full extent of it can be taught in a small book, as has been done before. Look at Henry Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’ which is practically the full extent that any individual citizen needs to know about economics and you will see that the laissez-faire policies of the early republic were far superior to the fascist style interventionism of the present day.

Austrian economics has taught us that if we want to live a more comfortable life in a more comfortable world then we must live by the golden rule, or the non-aggression principle as we libertarians like to call it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you —- or don’t aggress against anyone else unless they first aggress against you. This golden rule (or the N.A.P.) is not handed down by a supreme being, but it is the path to making the society approach a state of Nirvana none the less. The Taoists and their path (the Tao) told us a long time ago that intervention by “the ruler” was always bad and that we should let the people do things for themselves.

The fastest and easiest way to convince people that less government is more happiness by the masses is to reduce the size and scope of the government and let them see the incremental improvements. But there will be many road blocks along our journey to liberty. After all, the political class is not really running things. The political class is only the veneer of the state and not really the state itself. The state is the permanent bureaucratic structures and it is those institutions that make up the real ruling apparatus of the state. Look at the CIA for just one example.

No society can achieve any kind of justice based on the concept that some people have a “right” to have the state loot other people for their benefit. We see this today in the welfare state which has destroyed countless families and destroyed the morality of generations. Don’t forget that large, well connected corporations receive much from the state as well. We don’t call it “crony-capitalism” for nothing. We have created a power struggle that is endless, pointless, futile, and destructive. Only a return to the relatively non-interventionist government of the early days would be a good start towards a total freedom from the state. (that is, if you abhor the violence of armed revolution)

In truth there is no need for a “Constitution” to maintain peace and civility in a society. What is needed is a deep belief in the people that the initiation of physical aggression, intimidation, theft, fraud, and trespass are all morally reprehensible. That and the realization that assigning a monopoly power to an institution – government – is only going to yield in the end the utter brutality and cronyism we see around us today. When the people are compelled by a monopoly which interprets “the law” and uses violence to enforce its will upon the population, then it violates the individual’s right to choose which services one wants to use. We should have a right to choose which protective service we want to use for in a free, civilized society. No one should be above the law, and no one has any legitimate authority over anyone else without voluntary consent.

Ron Paul used a return to the constitution to try to teach the masses that government intervention is always the wrong way to go. Let us hope his message keeps on reverberating with the masses until they withdraw their consent to be governed by the evil monopoly we call the state.

American mercantilism?

We often hear the ignorant refer to the present American economic system as free market capitalism or mostly just “capitalism” where they mean free markets, and yet the American system has been heavily controlled, regulated, and interfered with by government for over a century with no free markets to be seen anywhere. Some say that the political control of the economy started from the very beginning of the Republic and the citizen’s right to do as he pleases as long as he harms no one else was violated with increasing frequency as time went by.

It matters little if you call the American system fascism, corporatism, crony-capitalism, “the third way”, a mixed economy, socialism, or even the more archaic term “mercantilism”. There is a spectrum that runs from laissez-faire free-markets (with no government intervention at all) to the fully government controlled economies of a North Korea or the old USSR. History and the Austrian School of Economics have shown over and over that any government intervention always makes the situation worse and normally makes it much worse for the poorest people. After all, as Groucho Marx observed “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

Murray N. Rothbard wrote about mercantilism in Conceived in Liberty (1975), volume 1, chapter 32: “Mercantilism, Merchants, and Class Conflict.” He observed:

The economic policy dominant in the Europe of the 17th and 18th centuries, and christened “mercantilism” by later writers, at bottom assumed that detailed intervention in economic affairs was a proper function of government. Government was to control, regulate, subsidize, and penalize commerce and production. What the content of these regulations should be depended on what groups managed to control the state apparatus. Such control is particularly rewarding when much is at stake, and a great deal is at stake when government is “strong” and interventionist. In contrast, when government powers are minimal, the question of who runs the state becomes relatively trivial. But when government is strong and the power struggle keen, groups in control of the state can and do constantly shift, coalesce, or fall out over the spoils. While the ouster of one tyrannical ruling group might mean the virtual end of tyranny, it often means simply its replacement by another ruling group employing other forms of despotism.

In the 17th century the regulating groups were, broadly, feudal landlords and privileged merchants, with a royal bureaucracy pursuing as a superfeudal overlord the interest of the Crown. An established church meant royal appointment and control of the churches as well. The peasantry and the urban laborers and artisans were never able to control the state apparatus, and were therefore at the bottom of the state-organized pyramid and exploited by the ruling groups. Other religious groups were, of course, separated from or opposed to the ruling state. And religious groups in control of the state, or sharing in that control, might well pursue not only strictly economic “interest” but also ideological or spiritual ones, as in the case of the Puritans’ imposing a compulsory code of behavior on all of society.


If those people who say that the USA has a system of modern fascism are correct then “fascism” does not differ all that much from the above described mercantilism. I suppose that is to be expected since the father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, modeled his system along the lines of strict government control just as the mercantilists of Britain did years before him.

It is obvious that the state controls the economic activities of all entities with laws, regulations, and the like, but what is not so obvious is that the modern US government even controls the entry of individuals into various occupations and professions. Not only can you not become a Doctor without the state’s permission, you may not even cut someone’s hair without the proper licenser. Try to become a cab driver without the approval of the state and see what happens to you. Like under “mercantilism”, the present government seeks to control, regulate, subsidize, and penalize commerce and production in all areas of American life. What has changed? The regulating groups have changed. The church is no longer part of the mix and the special interest groups seeking political power and handouts are different; but nothing has changed in reality.

As long as we allow the federal government to control the economic activities of the people then we can expect lower standards of living than we would have otherwise, especially for the poor. With modern mercantiliism can not expect liberty or freedom but rather we can expect dependency, slavery, and serfdom. We will be endlessly subjected to arbitrary and punitive rules and regulations. The state and all its minions seek to dominate you in all areas of your life and it finds dominating you in your economic activities is the easiest way to enslave you.

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself and to discover the true nature of government. Think of men like Edward Snowden who found out what the government’s NSA was doing and told the world about what he found. He told the world without any regard to the prevailing superstition that there were terrorists under every bed. If we ignore the propaganda, superstitions, taboos and utter heifer dust that we were taught in the government schools, we would discover that we must come to the conclusion that the government we live under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable. Like H. L. Mencken, I believe that all government is evil and that trying to improve it is mostly a waste of time and is often counter productive.

The only way to maximize prosperity and peace is to stop practicing the American mercantilist system and to move to laissez-faire free markets, and the only way to have no government intervention in the market is to have no government at all. The Irish did that for perhaps 9,000 years.

Like many people this time of year, I wish for peace among men throughout the world. I know that the only way to have peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness is for mankind to throw off the evil of the state that enslaves us. In the coming year we should all endeavor in anyway that we can to end the state and live in a voluntary world. We must teach people to withdraw their consent to be governed just at the people did in the old USSR. The good of all mankind does not depend on you recycling your trash, conserving gasoline, or having the grocery store put your purchase in re-usable bags. The good of mankind depends on you helping to overthrow the great evil that is the state. Do your part whenever you can.

A Call for a Return to a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

The original American foreign policy of the USA in the first decades of its existence was one of non-interventionism. The idea was to trade with all nations and stay out of all squabbles between other countries. The policy was strict neutrality much like the Swiss have followed since 1815; always ready to defend against invasion but never ready to invade another people’s territory. The old idea of non-interventionism in foreign policy as been a dead letter issue in the USA for generations now. Advocates of America’s modern foreign policy of interventionism, as well as most common citizens, believe that World War II occurred because America returned to its policy of “isolationism” after World War I and that is said to prove that the USA needs to police the entire world.

The first thing to understand is that “isolationism” is not the same as non-interventionism and the term “isolationist” is used mainly as a slur to stifle debate on foreign policy. The USA has engaged in trade and otherwise interacted with other countries throughout its history. The USA has never been a “closed” society like the modern North Korea. Non-interventionism simply means that a country minds its own business and does not use force or coercion to make other countries do its bidding.

The second thing is that many today argue that our failure to adopt the Versailles Treaty and to join the League of Nations allowed Hitler to come to power. They then claim that the “appeasement” of Great Britain and France led Germany to launch WWII. If the USA had been true to the non-interventionist foreign policy of its founders and had refused to enter World War I then there would not have been the horrendous end to the war that the USA’s entry caused. There would have been a negotiated treaty in 1917 as all parties to the war were exhausted and tired of conflict. There would have been no harsh Versailles Treaty forced on Germany and that means there would have not have been the great discontent in Germany that provided the fertile ground for the German Nazi Party and its leader Adolf Hitler.

Additionally, If the war had ended in 1917 with a negotiated truce and then treaty, there would have been no successful Russian Revolution. The great evil that was totalitarian communism would have not appeared on the world scene. Think about that one for a while. There would have been no successful birth of Communism.

If the USA had followed its founder’s non-interventionist policies then there would have been no World War II. There are those would would argue otherwise, but Winston Churchill himself believed that the USA should have stayed out of WWI. It was reported by the New York Enquirer in August of 1936 the following that Churchill claimed the following:

America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t to-day be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives. ~ Winston Churchill

We can not go into the past and change the actions of the USA, but with millions upon millions of deaths caused by our failure to follow a non-interventionist policy we should at least learn from what happened. When we take action, even with the best of intentions, the law of unintended consequence comes into play. In the modern era the USG has kept its military forces in the middle east and now there is death and destruction all over the region. There is rebellion in the air and peace is nowhere to be found in the region. Coincidence? Of course not, it is the logical outcome of the invasion by the USA of so many countries in the region.

The USA must drop its ambitions to rule the world and it must stop intervening in places that it has no business in. I would like to see the breakup of the USA into smaller regions, but even if that is not in the cards we must work to stop the military/industrial/political complex from setting the world on fire with war.


LBJ, “The Great Society”, and Social Ruin

The president that followed the assassination of President Kennedy was Lyndon Baines Johnson, or LBJ as he was referred to. Johnson is remembered for two main things, the horror that was the Vietnam war and the abomination that was called “The Great Society”.

The Great Society program was to be the crowning glory of the modern-liberal nanny state. It was a descendant of other socialistic programs that came before it such as the Square Deal, the New Freedom, the New Era, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the New Frontier. All of these programs were shifts away from the traditional way Americans had lived; always going from the relatively free life towards the more controlled and structured life of ever more government control, collectivism, entitlements, and welfare. The shift in ideology that these programs brought about in the country was one that took America from a relatively laissez-faire free-market economy approach to ever more state control of the life of the citizens in all aspects. These programs heralded a slow march toward the total state.

In the 19th century the citizen could pretty much ignore the government of the state safely. A man’s biggest concern was with what his local mayor or county commissioners were up to. The country, in the 19th century, was one were a man could for the most part make his own decisions about his life. By the 20th century the state held life-and-death power over the citizens. By the end of the 20th century the state controlled the individuals, the business groups, non-profits, and all institutions.

The nation was not at war when Johnson took over the presidency on November 22, 1963 and the economy was improving after a slight recession. The Great Society was a surge of federal economic interventions that occurred during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency. The centerpiece of the program was the “War on Poverty”.  The Great Society mainly represented a culmination of the collectivist ideas of the modern “liberals” in the economic, political, and social areas that had been fought for by the progressives (so-called “liberals”) since the 19th century.

With LBJ’s Great Society, along with his war on the peasants of Vietnam, the federal government’s intrusion into economic life swelled enormously. There were the enactments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Social Security Amendments of 1965 which created Medicare and Medicaid.

The Great Society and the Democrats also brought the establishment of the Office of Economic Opportunity to oversee programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, the Community Action Program, and Head Start, Community Action Agencies, and a host of other bureaus and departments. The stated purpose of these new measures was to promote poor people’s health, education, and job training. The program also brought a  broad range of economic regulatory measures. There were regulations adopted in connection with traffic safety, workplace conditions, consumer-products safety, age discrimination in employment, lending by banks, and almost any other area you can think of. The total state had arrived and would grow in power for the rest of my lifetime.


In writing about this era, Murray Rothbard told us:

The basic reason for this development is not difficult to fathom. It was best summed up by the great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer; Oppenheimer wrote that there were fundamentally two, and only two, paths to the acquisition of wealth. One route is the production of a good or service and its voluntary exchange for the goods or services produced by others. This method – the method of the free market – Oppenheimer termed “the economic means” to wealth. The other path, which avoids the necessity for production and exchange, is for one or more persons to seize other people’s products by the use of physical force. This method of robbing the fruits of another man’s production was shrewdly named by Oppenheimer the “political means.” Throughout history, men have been tempted to employ the “political means” of seizing wealth rather than expend effort in production and exchange. It should be clear that while the market process multiplies production, the political, exploitative means is parasitic and, as with all parasitic action, discourages and drains off production and output in society. To regularize and order a permanent system of predatory exploitation, men have created the state, which Oppenheimer brilliantly defined as “the organization of the political means.”

Every act of the state is necessarily an occasion for inflicting burdens and assigning subsidies and privileges. By seizing revenue by means of coercion and assigning rewards as it disburses the funds, the state creates ruling and ruled “classes” or “castes”; for one example, classes of what Calhoun discerned as net “taxpayers” and “tax-consumers,” those who live off taxation. And since, by its nature, predation can only be supported out of the surplus of production above subsistence, the ruling class must constitute a minority of the citizenry. ~ M.N. Rothbard

The “Great Society” was supposed to usher in a practical utopia in our society but by now the myth that the Great Society functioned as a great boon and benefit to the poor has by now been exposed as the lie and deception it always was. We have more poverty, homelessness, joblessness, and hopelessness than we did the day the Great Society began. The difference between justice for the poor and the wealthy elites has grown ever wider over the ensuing decades.  The poor have not become wealthy nor have the jobless men disappeared, but rather we have far more unemployed now than we did then. Are the underclass happy and satisfied or has society become every more divided and violent? Are the poor raising well adjusted children or disaffected, amoral thugs who enjoy sucker punching unsuspecting innocents to see if they can knock them out with a single punch? After 50 plus years do we no longer hear about “racism” or has “racism” become an excuse for damn near everything? In reality the poor are the major victims of the welfare state. The government claims to be helping the poor when, in fact, they are doing them irreparable harm. The economist Thomas Sowell once observed that centuries of slavery could not break the back of the black family, but that welfare did it in just two generations. And it is not just the black family that gets torn asunder by the welfare system, but by this day and age we see dysfunctionality affecting all groups, races, and income strata.

It is the children of the welfare class, the working poor, and middle class that join the military due to the “economic draft”. It is the poor who suffer most from zoning regulations and high property taxes that make buying or renting practically out of reach which leads to increased homelessness as government interventionism and all levels has wiped out affordable housing. The poor are also victimized by the government tenet of perpetual inflation caused by the FED and its horrific policies. Inflation is the enemy of the people, but especially the poor people.

The “Great Society” of LBJ and the progressives has led to growing poverty, loss of freedom, and societal degeneration even as the rhetoric, both then and now, promised the exact opposite. The state claims we are the “land of the free” when, in fact, this is the land of slaves and sheep. There is the ridiculous claim that we live in a land of capitalism with a free market! In fact we live in a fascist economy and have for decades on end. Our politicians and most of the people would not know a laissez-faire free-market if one bit them on the ass. The free economy is virtually gone, replaced by an imperial corporate-state Empire. The state is now in total control and it organizes, exploits, loots, and controls all aspects of the nation.

The Great Society failed to do what was promised and it led to the exact opposite. We have ruined the society as government control, intervention, and interference always does. It is time to kill the beast.

Who do you think owns you?

As far as I am concerned, the central question in any philosophy must be “who owns you?” Keep in mind that the definition of ownership is that person or entity that has full control over a person or thing. The owner may utilize of dispose of that which he owns in any way that he so chooses.

Stephan Kinsella:

The primary social evil of our time is lack of respect for self-ownership rights. It is what underlies both private crime and institutionalized crime perpetrated by the state. State laws, regulations, and actions are objectionable just because the state is claiming the right to control how someone’s body is to be used.

When the state drafts a man or threatens him with imprisonment if he violates its narcotics laws, for example, it is assuming partial control of his body, contrary to his self-ownership rights.

Modern Americans appear to think that slavery to the State is somehow much better than the old time slavery to another man. In fact, modern Americans appear to think that one can not be enslaved by the state even if the conditions of your life match those of the slaves of old. For moderns to believe this is testimony that the propaganda of the state is awesome indeed.

Look, either you are a free man or you are not. Few modern men seem to understand that being enslaved to the state is still being enslaved. Moderns seem to lack understanding of what is meant by “freedom”. Let me quote Lew Rockwell who once gave a short and clear definition of freedom.

What seems to have escaped the current generation is the notion that was once called freedom. Let me be clear on what I mean by freedom. I mean a social or political condition in which people exercise their own choices concerning what they do with their lives and property. People are permitted to trade and exchange goods and services without impediment or violent interference. They can associate or not associate with anyone of their own choosing. They can arrange their own lives and businesses. They can build, move, innovate, save, invest, and consume on terms that they themselves define. ~ Lew Rockwell

It would be hard to be more clear in this matter. Either you have the freedom and liberty to do as you please as long as you are not harming others … or you don’t, and any honest observer would can see that people do not have freedom in the US Empire.

Modern Americans have decided to trade small comforts for their very freedom. They are letting the nanny state control their very lives and trading liberty for the illusion of safety. Why do people allow themselves to be enslaved? Do they think that all blessings flow from the state? Often it is the economic ignorance of the masses that compel them to obey the state so that they might be materially comfortable. But the most peace, prosperity, and material well being possible flows from the laissez-faire free market.

“Libertarians understand that providers under capitalism – in their lexicon meaning the free market without government intervention – have no choice but to offer the best goods and services at the lowest possible prices. If they don’t, someone else will. This is not ‘unbridled’ capitalism. Every shopper, every purchaser, every consumer, everyone who pays for services or products, is the bridle of every provider in the marketplace. Companies don’t have armies of enforcers gong from door to door demanding that consumers buy from them or go to jail. If they did they wouldn’t be companies, they would be the equivalent of governments, and if they could do that they wouldn’t bother selling products or services, they would just take people’s money at gunpoint.” ~Garry Reed

It is a bargain with the Devil himself to trade your freedom for material comfort or for a small bit of supposed safety. Many years ago when I was but a boy, I thought of myself as a “libertarian” who saw the small government philosophy of the nations founders as a radical solution to the problems of the Ancien Régime. We threw off “King and Altar” and formed a voluntary union of states under the Articles of Confederation which was later “improved” by the drafting of our constitution. Over time I woke up to the realization that Rothbard was right when he said all governments will grow in strength and power until they enslave you.

There is nothing left to argue about. Some governments may, indeed, be better than other governments just as some men are better than other men, but if you love liberty you can be nothing other than an anarchist. After all, we ran an experiment in “democracy” that started with a minarchy government (a society with a very “minimal government) that has gone on over 250 years and that experiment has given us, in the end, a brutal police state and a world wide Empire that is the scourge of mankind.

You have been enslaved by the state and it is well past time to throw off the chains of that brutal, evil master. Please don’t ever utter the abomination, “it is a free country after all” or similar lies. You are bound by hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that order you what to do with your own body, your other property, your earnings, and your time while the state uses the wealth looted from its subjects to inflict death and destruction worldwide.

If you like the motto “live and let live” then you must understand that the state is the sworn enemy of that motto and the freedom it represents.