End the War on Freedom

From Roy Child Jr.'s The Epistemological Basis of Anarchism, talking about warring defense agencies in an anarchist society:

Ultimately, of course, this whole line of attack leads to a particularly interesting conclusion: the limited-government libertarian will describe in all its horror the possibility of one agency taking over bit by bit, destroying other agencies of defense, usurping power over everyone in a given geographical area, establishing a monopoly on the power to enforce certain rules of society conduct ... But it usually occurs to him somewhere in the midst of his graphic tirade that his major objection to anarchism is ... (gasp!) that it might actually develop into a government! But of course the retort to this is that that is what we have already, and that is what he is advocating in any case. If he is really afraid of one agency's developing into a monopoly, why is he advocating that as an ideal to begin with? Surely if such a thing did happen to an anarchist society, there would be one inestimable benefit: people would at least be aware of the process by which the defense agency became a government -- by initiating force. There would be no illusions.

another excerpt:

For the state today everywhere rests on the foundation of aggression and intimidation; all states today have three fundamental characteristics in common, which serve to unite them into a specific kind of institution (criminal) and differentiate them from other institutions in society. These attributes are: [1] All states obtain their revenue, not through a process of production and exchange, but through confiscation and intimidation, through the robbery of taxation, which is initiated force; [2] All states have usurped or assumed power over everyone in a geographical area, regardless of their will in the matter, which is enslavement; and [3] All states prohibit others from competing with them in functions which are morally proper (under ideal conditions), such as retaliation and issuance of currency. Hence, all states are based on the foundation of blatant aggression against peaceful men, through regulation, robbery, and enslavement, not to mention the mass murder of the wars which states periodically engage in, in order to maintain their illicit status. Moreover, since even their one (potentially) proper function -- retaliation -- is not conducted according to objective principles of justice, no state is justified in doing, qua state, anything whatever.

The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that all present states are criminal organizations at root, and differ, one from the other, on a fundamental level only in degree. Superficial differences are apparent. They are also morally (on a fundamental moral level) irrelevant. In any case, since the state (all states) is a criminal organization, anyone is justified in retaliation (using retaliatory violence) to preserve or regain any value whatever. Furthermore, anyone who counsels, on moral, rather than tactical, grounds, otherwise, is advocating an immoral position, which means: a position which is anti-life. It is to attempt to morally disarm the victim of an aggressor, which is morally equivalent to sanctioning the criminal and helping him to get away with his crime...

From The Federalist:

"And so much for the Founding Fathers' idea of a union of several self-governing states that would delegate to a central government only those limited powers needed for dealing with other nations in peace and war and for providing for the general welfare. Well, fellows, it was a nice try. And it's truly sad to watch what was devised with such high hopes evolve steadily into a heavily centralized, ever more socialized government yearly expands its control over the states and the people. Old Ben Franklin must have had a premonition when he replied, when asked what kind of a government the Constitutional Convention had come up, 'A republic -- if you can keep it'." --Lyn Nofziger

Alan Weiss at Rational Review - They're not here, and they're not coming: Part One - jobs for geeks like me, that is. The recession is way worse than anyone is letting on. In part two, Mr. Weiss intends to explore some of the business opportunities of the next five to ten years. [smith2004]

Those computer, information technology, engineering jobs are NOT coming back. We are going to have to invent our next future. We are like car workers in Detroit in the mid-1970's. We are like electronics workers before 1984. Before the personal computer was invented. Before -- all this -- was created, the very high resolution color CRT screen you're staring at was invented.

We must -- MUST -- start inventing our new futures right now. We spend so much time worrying about conspiracy theories, causation analysis, railing against the erosion of our liberties. We're right to do so. But in all our rantings, screeds and analysis, let us also take time to think about who we are. WE are the individuals who believe in Adam Smith, the free market, supply and demand, satisfying customers. Lets all think of what people need, want, and will exchange those nonsensical little green slips of paper for. Then lets work to provide what they need and want. Let us grow, not rich, but maybe the right to sleep well at night. Let us grow the peace of mind of a steady income.

Dean Kuipers at LA CityBeat via AlterNet - Medical Pot Users Get Burnt - A good overreview of the d.e.a.'s violation of California's Proposition 215. The latest lambs for the slaughter are Lynn and Judy Osburn, who were the "state-approved growers for the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center (LACRC), a West Hollywood medical marijuana co-op operating legally under Prop 215." They stand to have their 60-acre ranch stolen by the feds. [grabbe]

Edgar J. Steele - Twelve Steps - a conservative begins the process of recovery. Hehe.

4. I have made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself. I have found myself to be untrusting of my Leaders and uncomfortable with the position into which They have placed my family and myself. I have not believed in the necessity for invading Middle Eastern countries and liberating children by killing their parents. I have doubted the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I have refused to believe that some raghead in an Afghanistan cave masterminded 17 other ragheads with partial training in flying Cessnas into the single greatest exhibition of precision flying in the history of aviation. I have believed it was not necessary to kill all those babies at Waco. This must change.

Janalee Tobias at KeepAndBearArms.com - The Children Have Spoken About Guns in School - Ms. Tobias appeared as an expert witness at a mock trial in a fifth grade class of a South Jordan, Utah elementary school. I wish adults would display as much common sense as these children. [kaba]

After about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes. The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

The comments of the jurors reflected their fear of a crazed criminal coming in and shooting up the school. They want teachers to be able to carry a gun for their protection as long as they know how to use it, know the safety rules, and keep it out of the reach of students. They also want the "bad guys" to think that if they come into their school to shoot it up, that a "good guy" is going to shoot them back and protect the children.

Andrew Rogers - An Introduction to Individualist Anarchism - an introduction to the concepts of anarcho-capitalism, with plenty of links to chase for details. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, for your link to End the War on Freedom on your Blogs and News and Information sites page.

I don't have a right to pull a gun on you and steal your money. Therefore, I cannot authorize my huge friend Bruno to steal your money. The fact that Bruno and I go to rob you together doesn't give us any more right to your money than we had before, even though we outnumber you.

But ... what if the two of us, and 200 or 2,000 of our neighbors, get together and instead of calling ourselves an armed gang or a militia, decide to call ourselves a "government"? Do we then have the right to take your money? Certainly, we have the power to do so. But does that give us the right?

No. Not even if we pretend to have your consent by calling ourselves "The People," and saying we took a vote and confirmed our right to your money and, well, you could have voted too if you had wanted to (this is a democracy after all).

Taxation is theft. It's that simple.

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - Independence from England, Dependence on Washington? - why the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are still important today, 200 years after they were created by some now dead white men.

Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it "evolves" to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.

In my opinion this perspective threatens the very foundation of American greatness. The principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence define the American way of life. Without those principles we become just another country, governed by whim and expediency, with no guiding vision beyond the ambitions of the latest politicians in power. The purpose of the Constitution was to impose systematic limits on government power, limits that survive the political tides.

We owe our Founding Fathers a tremendous debt of gratitude. They created a society based on the radical idea that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of the individual, preexisting rights granted by God rather than the state. For the first time in human history, a government was designed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. This triumph of the individual over the claims of the state, the King, the collective, or society represents a great gift to humanity. The principle of a servant government is the ideal that made America the greatest nation on earth.

...

And on this Fourth of July, they [our Founders] would outrageously find that fireworks displays all across the nation have been cancelled, because communities did not obtain federal licenses for handling explosives.

Add comment Edit post Add post