Negative rights amount to the line where you can say “no.” I have a right to say no if you want to touch me, take my things, or restrict my free will/movement. Those rights are legitimate up to the point they bump into someone else’s negative rights. For example: I have the right to freedom of movement so long as I do not use it to violate someone else’s right to say “no” regarding their own person or property.

Positive rights, on the other hand, are when people claim a right to the actions, thoughts, or property of another. Healthcare is thought of as a “right,” but it would fall in the “positive rights” category, since it demands the time, action, and property of others in order to be realized. This is a good example, and delineates why positive “rights” are actually a form of slavery. If you claim some kind of right to me in any way, you are making a claim of ownership, and the literal definition of slavery is one human being owning another.

Government IS control of the public at large, via force and threats of force. I’m not talking about what it claims to be. I’m not talking about what we’re taught it is. I’m not talking about all of the sacred ink on paper (founding documents, legislation, etc.). All of those things are merely opinions, canonized and so widely repeated that they are now largely viewed as “facts” (which is fucking sad).

I’m talking about what can be empirically proven through evidence, and examination through first principles. Hell, even through etymology and definition.

Gubernare (latin) – to rule

Mentum (latin) – instrument or medium

Government – the instrument or medium by which one rules

Rule – control of or dominion over an area or people

Logically speaking, government is control of the population. This is only accomplished (ultimately, if you trace all methods to their basic core), through coercion (violence and threats of violence). If it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be “government” (which is externally imposed), but would rather be “cooperation” (which happens internally for the individuals involved).

Now that we’ve established that government = control, on to voting.

Voting is the way they say you have a “voice” in how you are controlled. What they don’t want you to think about it is – given it’s true and they’re not just bullshitting you (doubtful) – that control is also being used on everyone else. When you vote (and win, yay!) for your own preference, you get to celebrate that your life is a little bit more how you want it to be. You forget the 49% who voted the “other way” and didn’t want their lives to be like this. They don’t want it, they want to say “no,” but you and the other winners got to write the rules this time and they have no choice.

Think of it on a much smaller scale.

I think we can all agree that I don’t have the right to kick in your door in the middle of the night, handcuff you, rummage through your home and take your widget. Let alone the right to then kidnap you and throw you in a cage because I was offended that you had a widget in your possession. I don’t like widgets. My cousin’s cat’s veterinarian was addicted to widgets and it destroyed his life. I think everyone should use sprockets instead. But that doesn’t give me the right to violently steal your widget and lock you up for having it instead of a sprocket.

I think we can all also agree that zero is zero and zero cannot be multiplied, divided, transferred, or defended. I have ZERO right to do those things, so I cannot logically transfer that right to someone else. I can’t gather more people who hate widgets and create that right out of thin air. I can’t write it down on paper to create it. I do not have it to begin with, so I cannot give it to someone else.

Voting is no more than the act of bestowing rights that don’t exist onto others who also do not have them.

The problem is that most people spent 12 of their most formative years being conditioned to believe that getting together in a widget-hating caucus magically creates the right to violate the individual’s negative right to say “no,” and confers a vague but definitely real, for real you guys, ethical indulgence for such violations. Especially if it’s for “the children,” or “public infrastructure,” or “safety-ness,” or “muh borders,” etc… because everyone knows that the group’s comfort and feelings are way more important than the legitimate negative rights of the individual, right?

What this all boils down to is that I don’t have a right to control your life (govern you), and I can’t give away what I don’t have (voting).

This is a very definite philosophical and ethical “hard line.” You either believe the individual has the right to say “no,” or you don’t. If you don’t, then you’re a tyrant. Plain and simple.

The post The Rights and Wrongs of Rights appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

There’s a new piece out with MIT professor Noam Chomsky, adapted from a previous interview, titled Noam Chomsky Explains Exactly What’s Wrong With Libertarianism . He doesn’t do this, but instead, characteristic of Chomsky, goes on vague rants which appear to offer no real, workable solutions to the problems in the world. Indeed, Chomsky would appear quite favorable to the state; at least, relative to the market economy which he fears would be a unchecked force without the state.

The first non-argument set forth by Chomsky, intended as a way to make libertarianism seem so obscure that it must be illegitimate, is to say that, “what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, [it] doesn’t really exist anywhere else.”

This would be the same as to say that, since only few people have acknowledged the validity of something, that it’s not valid. This is often invoked as a case against free-market (Austrian) economics. “If it’s correct/the best way,” the opponent will claim, “why isn’t it the prevailing doctrine?” Well, because there is nothing to stop bad ideas from taking over.

Left-anarchists overall like to use this Chomsky non-argument to say that, since “anarchism was historically socialist,” therefore “anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism.” It is true that anarcho-capitalism is more modern relative to anarcho-socialism, but historical or etymological origin doesn’t change meanings. It doesn’t change that the anarcho-capitalist is extremely hostile to the state (more so than Chomsky), and that it emerged from centuries of anti state classical liberalism.

Thus, even if we grant the validity of the argument, it isn’t even true the anarchists always cited — or the ones existing in the 19th century — were opposed to individualism, free-markets, and property rights. As anarcho-capitalist Bryan Caplan noted, “ despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private property (merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such).

Caplan goes on to quote the American anarchist Benjamin Tucker, who, writing in 1887, said that,

“it will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that ‘property is robbery’ to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products.”

Chomsky then continues to strawman the anarcho-libertarian tradition following the above non-argument, saying that it, “permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.”

This is not at all the case. The libertarian holds to the non-aggression principle, which condemns aggression as criminal, and permits the use of force only in self-defense of rightful ownership of body and property. It is the idea of the state in which power can be unleashed to do whatever it likes; and it would seem Chomsky is fond of this solution.

Chomsky has a loose way with words which must turn some people on to, well, whatever his ideas really are, such as to say that “concentrated private power” will take over. He is, again, quite vague on what it is he really stands for, generally self-identifying as an “anarcho syndicalist.”

“Private power”

Chomsky is afraid of what he repeatedly calls “private power,” perhaps such as to make you fear freedom from the state; he uses this term eight times in this piece. But he leaves out that these corporations he speaks of have always went to the state to obtain the power that they were unable to on the market.

As documented by Murray Rothbard in The Progressive Era , in every industry, every time, private attempts at cartels and monopolies failed, and these businesses saw to it that the only way they would be successful is to turn to the strong arm of the state. And so they did, putting forth various laws, such as the Federal Reserve Act, to gain control of the economy which they found impossible to do so without state assistance.

Chomsky would seem to hold the view that the state came in to save everyone in the 1930s, and the preceding progressive era, rather than this being a time when private interests indeed worked to secure special privileges from the state. The progressive era was not one where unchecked private power was finally checked; it was a time when these private interests saw to it that the government secure their position in the economy.

However, Chomsky, the alleged anarchist, believes that we need more of the state to check them.  Despite acknowledging the “concentration of private power through the use of state system,” he would seemingly like to have it both ways: the state can be convenient and socialist, too.

While the anarcho-capitalist acknowledges that not every quasi-private business in our crony-socialist economy is legitimate, being that many of them have been privileged by the state in various ways, the solution remains that denying them the state — and its special privileges, subsidies, contracts — would lead them to fail . Private power came about through state power, and Chomsky is completely backward — my guess, wittingly — in his idea of the role of the state.

A strategy for liberty?

In the voluntaryist tradition, which Chomsky would deride as giving way to “private power,” it is never acceptable to use statist means toward libertarian ends; the state is patently coercive and anarchists should avoid associating with it in any capacity (voting, taking office, etc).

Long a question to anarchists is how this anarchist society will be achieved.

Especially if the political means are off the table. Some will agree that it sounds ideal, but being that we do have a state, how do we get there?

According to Chomsky,

“One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled.”

Trying to reconcile this with their alleged anarchism, the state is justified “in the context of the capitalist economy.” So long as there is private power — though, how will anarcho-syndicalism rid the world of private property? — the state may be a useful tool in controlling it.

If they fear “private power,” which economists such as Ludwig von Mises had always distinguished from state power for that the market economy exists to serve the consumers, then it would seem that Chomsky and anarcho syndicalists are scared of statelessness. For, how would they stop people from accumulating capital, freely exchanging, using money, etc., in a world without the state? It seems they believe they couldn’t , and the state may hold the solution.

It is almost as if they rightly realize the state is socialist and exists as the means to trample on private property rights. So much for the “capitalist state,” as the interviewer suggests, it is correctly realized that the state is the means of having socialism; and that a stateless society would in fact mean capitalism.

To Chomsky, the state is useful because it “provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power.”

While the world isn’t perfect, and the scope of discussion is very much what is preferable , e.g., liberty to the state, Chomsky is clear that he believes the private, market economy is “much more dangerous” than the state. That the state is preferable to the market is all that’s needed to confirm that one is not an anarchist.

But he’s not done yet. The state has won so many concessions for the people, it is believed, that surely the enactment of more laws for “the workers” would be good. One starts to get the feel that there is no real difference in an anarcho-socialist and a state-socialist; socialism always means to violate property rights. It is typical of left-anarchist types that state-run healthcare, labor laws, minimum wage laws, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc., are all good; to abolish them would be horrendous. What does Chomsky suggest is good in the state?

“Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that.”

Again, on not realizing that “private power” turned to the state for real power, these interests —and not “the workers” — were always the ones behind these acts. It was those at the top pushing for workman’s compensation and other labor laws, knowing this would increase the costs of doing business, thus heightening the barriers to entry into the market and keeping out competition.

What is “decent” healthcare is apparently to be decided by Chomsky.

Again, ignorant that markets do provide, Chomsky tells us these wonderful things the state has given us are “not going to come about through private power.”

So how might an “anarchist” suggest they will come about?

“They can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control…to carry forward reformist measures. I think those are fine things to do. they should be looking forward to something much more, much beyond, — namely actual, much larger-scale democratization.”

Chomsky is essentially a democratic-socialist, hence his giddy support for the Bernie Sanders campaign, respecting Sanders for being brave enough to come out as a socialist. Indeed, he says of “anarcho-syndicalism” that “democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society.” Worse, Chomsky appears quite fond of Chavez and the Venezuelan prospect of offering the world an alternative (just as Sanders praised it).

Typical of a democratic socialist, which is but a softcore variety of communism, distance is sought from the much more heinous episodes in socialism, while a “huge” difference is presented to exist between both degrees of socialism. Chomsky is content with the latter, still statist, variety.

“As for state socialism, depends what one means by the term. If it’s tyranny of the Bolshevik variety (and its descendants), we need not tarry on it. If it’s a more expanded social democratic state, then the comments above apply.”

There you have it: state-socialism isn’t bad per se ; it “depends what one means” by it. There is thus an implicit admission that the state is in fact socialist (not capitalist), and this is good so long as it’s democratic . Seemingly his, and other anarcho-syndicalist’s, only problem with the state is that it isn’t democratic enough.

He continues

Further into this think-piece, Chomsky sounds the alarm of “climate change,” saying “we are facing a threat, a serious threat, of catastrophic climate change. And it’s no joke.” Presumably, the state would be used to check this, too. The solution, may we suggest, would be a greater enforcement of property rights, which doesn’t come under the state, to where any polluter, without a free pass, could be tried for aggression against the property rights of others.

It is true that the state rests on legitimacy, and not simply force alone, but Chomsky’s idea of indoctrination and propaganda is not that of the state indoctrinating people, but rather corporations who use clever marketing to dupe them. It’s as if people are forced to watch television or buy products in the same way they’re forced to fund the state through taxes.  Chomsky doesn’t seem to care much to talk about how the state seeks to control people. Rather, he thinks the state can be used as a device to do the controlling.

In a way, Chomsky is much like Sanders to simply point out a problem which most anyone agrees is a problem (say, prices are rising), but fail to identify the cause to the reader (monetary inflation), on top of offering no real solution to this problem (a return to sound money). He voices his concern that “one of the main problems for students today — a huge problem — is skyrocketing tuitions.” In democratic socialist fashion, this must be compared to other, relatively rich countries, and we should ask “why do we have tuitions that are completely out-of-line with other countries?” Nevermind the massive government meddling in education in the United States, where there is no free-market in education, where should Americans look for examples of better models?

“Go across the ocean: Germany is a rich country. Free tuition. Finland has the highest-ranked education system in the world. Free … virtually free. So I don’t think you can give an argument that there are economic necessities behind the incredibly high increase in tuition.”

Chomsky is obviously not an economist, but to make use of his renown, speaks of economic issues anyway. Someone needs to tell Chomsky “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” and that “taxation is theft” already, because this “anarchist” had a lot to learn.

Chomsky and libertarian-anarchism

To be so hostile to anarcho-capitalism, Chomsky is quite vague here in what it is he believes are the solutions, though he does mention these anarcho-syndicalist models which he says are still in need of work. Anyone looking for clear, concise, coherent arguments against the state and for liberty will have to look toward the anarcho-libertarian tradition set forth by figures such as Murray N. Rothbard, who Chomsky has also commented on.  They won’t find it from left-anarchists.

In the interview, Chomsky gives us his [vague] definition of anarchism:

“Anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics.”

Rothbard gives us something of much more substance, in his Society Without a State .

“I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual.”

Whereas anarchism and the market is a “spontaneous order” to many anarcho-libertarians (of the American phenomenon!), the leftist-egalitarian variety of anarchism is apparently something that needs to be planned; it is not the market economy where many individuals privately associate with one another.

In the end Chomsky doesn’t offer much of anything to one interested in ideas to reach liberty.  He gives us the solution of the state, which has been no solution at all. Maybe the elites, perhaps Chomsky included, genuinely fear the libertarian tradition, for it serves as a decisive smack-down of the state and leaves no wiggle-room, as Chomsky likes to create, for the possibility that the state is a public benefactor. Contra Chomsky, to Rothbard, “the state is organized crime, murder, theft, and enslavement incarnate.”  There are no exceptions.

If the government really needed to pay a shill to confuse those with anarchist inclinations, and turn them back to the state, Chomsky would be their guy. If they were ever in need of a guy to make anarchism seem like an incoherent, impossible ideology, Chomsky is their man.

Mike Morris’s work can be found at the Front Range Voluntaryist

The post Noam Chomsky: Poser Anarchist appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

I know many people believe that “one should join politics to do ‘greater good’ for the society” but they fail to consciously understand that politics is a profession designed to degrade, dictate and debauch the liberties of all individuals except for the establishment.

Therefore, politics is a medium to organically achieve the disastrous conclusions.

It’s the power that attracts the miscreants toward politics, otherwise, why wouldn’t you become an entrepreneur, social volunteer, educator, anarchist or an agorist to serve the economic needs, anthropological desires and empathetic expectations of the people?

I am sure that you would not join the Taliban group to “change” the theme of Islamic terrorism “from within”. Similarly, what’s so magical about ‘joining politics to change politics from within’?

In this case, the only good thing about Taliban terrorists is that:

1) they do not fund the media,

2) camouflage people’s opinion,

3) fake electionery promises,

4) lobby with cronyists and

5) deliver unaccountable GDP results.

Whereas, politicians enjoy the monopoly on terrorizing the system.

Amazon Gold Box – Deals of the Day – Today’s Deals

They say, “It is not ok if you are uninterested in politics because every function of our lives is determined by the activities of the politics”. I think this is untrue and baseless.

Every activity is, in fact, determined by freedom, reason and human action.

It’s the politics which turn things upside-down through legislations, regulatory captures, and legal robbery.

Read: Why democracy choose bad policies?

Watch: Why politicians don’t cut spending?

Anyway, good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws or constitution. To become a good person, you do not need a ruler. You need voluntary or apolitical rules. And, as long as we have the supply of politics, the world will never know peace.

Either by left way or right way, the virtual aim of the politics is to dominate, conscript, expropriate and inspect the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Debating “who is the lesser evil” is idiotic, incoherent and imbecilic. It does not matter who is in power because politics is anyway the art of strengthening the master-slave relationship. It is also the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the ‘democratic’ government at the cost of individual liberty (refer democide).

Conclusion: Imagine that you detach from legitimizing the whole saga on the voting day and become a person of humane conscience.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post You Should Not Join Politics. This is why. appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.

To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.

Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.

By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments.

Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that.

To begin with:

Power does not corrupt. Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. It’s the limited power which corrupts the economy wholly. In fact, unlimited power is the science of getting things done without being accountable at all. Without power, you cannot choke down your imbecilic imaginations on anyone’s soul.

Money is the Kim Kardashian of the economy. If you don’t know how to spank (spend) the paper then you are unfit to be a politician. All you have to do is print the paper out of thin air. It is uneconomical to back the paper with gold or any other commodity because it would end up empowering your slaves and they would devalue you later.

Muscles: Kindly sign up with your nearby local mafia gang without letting them know that you’re the best mafia in town. Delude them but pay them handsomely. You need muscle power, along with money power, to get the people obey you decently. Call them “cops” instead?

Monopoly: Imagine people listening to you or obeying you without questioning you or regulating you? It is possible if you prioritise the power of monopoly without sharing it with others. As long as you have the monopoly with yourself, people won’t take you jokingly. Your uncontrollable attitude towards monopoly will determine the course of people’s aptitude and political altitude.

Sadism: All your political speeches should look diplomatic and manipulative. If any trait is missing then you won’t achieve the aim. I know that you are always orgasmic to screw people’s wealth but please ensure that you’re not letting them know, otherwise who would suck their liberties? Try to camouflage your opinions as if you’re the only romantic person in the economy, without letting your people know that you’re going to economically BDSM them, without their consent.

Propaganda: Buy as much as media you can, but on the mainstream level. Anyway, social media memes have limited reach. If some of the media houses don’t gibe with your ‘policy’ then over-regulate their “freedom of expression”. Automatically, the media would love to appreciate your narcism (if you can make them sleep with you over a bottle of whisky). Propaganda is an art of showing yourself clean when you’re not. Imitate the propaganda models of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or Trumperica, to begin with.

Regulation: Your chances of getting re-elected is lower if you minimise the regulations. Already people are addicted to submission, fear and violence so it makes sense for you to supply them with more laws, rules and regulations. Make the “book” more technical, biblical and draconian so that you can create more jobs and consultancy firms and the regulatory captures. If you minimise the regulations, you lose your presence  in the history of global economy.

Ideology: Don’t use “isms” at all but do translate the theory into action. For example: You can say that “we believe in democracy” (which is, of course, a mild version of communism) without letting the “social scientists” know that you’re actually doing fascism or communism. I know that you cannot “convince” the mass society all-the-time but you can surely “confuse” them with the ideologies. Develop a “public sphere” and [discursive] “marketplace of ideas” so that people fall for it, and you end up diverting them from the unimportant issues like economics freedom, property rights, judicial independence, etc.

People’s wealth is your wealth. Your wealth is your wealth only. Just don’t forget to use the term “people” in your speeches or else people won’t fall for your Ponzi schemes. The best way to get more wealth from people is to tax their every function, including non-economic ones. They would believe that you’re creating the wealth in the economy, and that’s what matters for the economy of “social security”. When it comes to taxation, always ignore knowing that it is the “compulsory fee” which we pay for the uncivilization.

War: Anything you can do constitutionally is fun. For example: You will be charged for murder if you’re not from the government. You can have more wars so that you can create more jobs through inflation, wealth through defence industries, and popularity through media. War is the health of your political stability. It should make you look powerful, no matter how you’re.

Fair Trade: There is nothing called “free trade”. I mean it is so insane to learn that people can voluntarily trade with another without coercion. The idea of “fair trade” makes sense because it can help you to play with the currencies and trade conflicts at your political whims. The more you bring fairness in trade, the more people would legitimise your defence policy.

Conclusion: If you’re not convinced to be a politician then you need to reread this piece.
_______________________________________________________

About the author
Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_______________________________________________________

The post A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

What matters to them is their own “political ego” and nothing else.

But, it isn’t my business to decide the best political opinion, statement or scientist because ‘politics is inherently a waste of time, energy, mind and wealth’.

Read the following reasons to know why, and figure them out at your discretion without feeling guilty, low and manipulated:

1.  Debating politics would not change anything except your personality and social impression, which would ultimately make you look stupid in the end.

For example: You have a political opinion about A. Your friend (frenemy) has a political opinion about B. You justify the debate as a “social process of enlightenment” but what would you or your opponent do with the opinion, when the views have simply backfired, and changed nothing, during the process?

If you believe that your political opinion will “simply and suddenly” change the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent nature of the government then you’re absolutely wrong.

Why should a “characterless gang of the armed leaders” give a fuck about your opinion when you’re not part of their monopoly game?

Ask yourself because the burden of proof is not on me.  

2.  Sharing political opinions is not an act of information-sharing, enlightenment and cognitive emancipation because you’re simply speaking what your government wants you to.

You may believe that you have “freedom of speech” in this case but you’re not doing anything new, simply because your political opinion is manipulative, subjective and asocial.

For example: You believe that government should X and not Y. Your opponent believes that the government should undo X and do Z instead. What you fail to realize  is that the government is going to do what it wants without giving a fuck about your political enlightenment because the economics of the government is dependent upon expanding its power and minimising your freedom at the expense of everyone else.

Your political opinion may lean from left to right or vice versa, but your opinion is simply static within the political spectrum of the system. If you believe that your opinion should make sense then try to pose an apolitical statement and see how your frenemies and government reacts to it.

3.  Well, do you remember the time the slaves banded together to beg their masters for freedom, and they succeeded? Or, the time the Jews pleaded with the Pharaoh to let them free, and they were successful? Such events never happened and would never happen, and it’s easy to understand that such scenarios are silly, right?

Sadly, many of the loudest “political voices” believe that doing the same thing i.e. “asking our chivalrous master to voluntarily cede the parasitical power, is the only way of achieving equality and liberation”. They believe that if you just vote (harder) for the “lesser evil”, all of our problems will be solved! Little do they realize that voting for a lesser evil is still choosing an evil. You don’t need a political opinion to quantify the size of the evil.

You simply need a psychologist to help you understand that there’s only one evil, and that is the government. Lysander Spooner, once said:

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

Conclusion:

Debating politics may not be an important tool for those who are newly introduced to the ideas of freedom. Neither it will ever be the solution to attaining freedom. Politics is antithetical to freedom since you are conceding that you require a master. Debating politics adds more fuel to the fire.

Freedom does not come from permission.

Stop wasting your time in debating and trying to lengthen the master’s leash around your neck. Freedom will be won when you take control of your life. Freedom comes from recognizing that you are a free, beautiful, and independent human being. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise through “political discussions”.

If #PoliticalDebatesMatter then do follow these steps:

The post 3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

I am not an Indologist but I live in India. In this article, I do not intend to divulge the marketing skills of my authorship but helping my international amigos to know the features of Vedic anarchism. To begin with, the Vedas are a large body of knowledge texts originating in the ancient Indian subcontinent.

Composed in the Sanskrit language, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeya, which means “not of a man, superhuman” and “impersonal, authorless”. Vedic anarchism period existed in Bhaarat (India) between 4000 BC – 500 BC. But, in today’s time, in India as elsewhere, the anarchist thought is widely misunderstood. As Bhagat Singh (1907–1931), one of the few Indian revolutionaries who had explicit anarchist leanings, put it:

“The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.”

Vedic anarchism is a fearless trek into the unknown. Since it throws out the imposed normative ideals of other political philosophies, Vedic anarchism prescribes complete sacrifice of the ego of a politically-driven mind. It forebodes the usual prescriptions and solutions for society’s ills and trusts the forces of cooperative effort, mutual respect, and mutualism will do better. It’s the respect for the limits of human reason, the fallibility of human power, the unlikely, but unsurpassed, power of unconscious design, the appreciation of innovation and progress brought about by forces completely out of our control and, above all, humility – the recognition of one’s own mistakes, flaws, ignorance, and inability to know the unknown.

Vedic anarchism is the “spiritual recognition” of our ultimately unprivileged position in the world, the acknowledgement of the fact that we are systematically ignorant of the crucial forces that the fabric of social life depends on, and to embrace this dynamism of life is to live happily and freely. To reject the conservatism of coercion, hierarchy, and central planning, to see that only a virtuous, impassioned people are capable of developing and maintaining the peaceful emergent orders that allow humanity to flourish requires the humility that only honest and everlasting introspective analysis can provide. Vedic anarchism emphasises that only constant self-questioning accompanied with self-improvement will reveal what our lives and our happiness ultimately count on.

Unlike the modern Western Anarchist theories, the Vedic Anarchism is a time tested and successfully established anarchist model of the ancients. The rishis (saints) who have given Vedas are the first founders of Vedic anarchist societies. They dwelled in forests outside the control of any state or governments or monarchies and enforced a values-based living through the knowledge on Rta (principle of self-regulation and universal coordination) and dharma (right way of living is achievable through non-aggression).

Unlike the Western anarchism that emphasises priority to anti-state and anti-rulers policies, Vedic Anarchism primarily deals with self-consciousness, non-hierarchical and decentralised polity, community living, and ecologically sustainable lifestyles through its varna, ashrama, dharma, and janapada system.

The term “Janapada” literally means the foothold of the people.  The Janapada system created a non-hierarchical and decentralised polity of root-level democracy.

The dharma system is wisdom in action. The wisdom that brought awareness about natural and social powers is known as Rta. This system attempted values-based living and brought ecologically sustainable lifestyles.

The dharma system is wisdom in action. The wisdom that brought awareness about natural and social powers is known as Rta. This system attempted values-based living and brought ecologically sustainable lifestyles.

The ashrama system empowered individual freedom and independent expressions. Based on the biological age, the needs and behavior of individuals are categorized as:

1) Student life,

2) Householder life,

3) Retiring life, and

4) Renouncing life.

The Vedic varna system ensured swadharma-based entitlements that brought flexibility, non-hierarchical and decentralised distribution of powers among all the communities for a balanced society, smooth inter-dependency, as well as deals with social responsibilities.

From these Vedic systems, arose the Mahajanapada system that formed the basis of all kingdoms and republics of India. This system administered the root-level distribution of political, technological, economic, and social powers.

All of the ancient Vedic period states followed grass-root democracy raising from the village communities. The Vedic polity of root-level democracy has turned the entire India as a community and village-based society. These villages were, in Vedic times, completely self-sufficient, self-governing, cooperative, nature bound and ensured complete independence from the state and its politics.

Thomas Munroe, Charles Metcalfe, and Mark Wilks are a few of the Orientalists who have eloquently described these importance village communities held in India. Because of the Janapada system, anarchism ruled the roots and roosts of India, irrespective of kings and other types of rulers. C.F. W. Hegel finds that this system ensured the whole of India and her societies not yielding to despotism, subjection, or subjugation of any rulers. Its influence is very strong and far reaching, even in the colonial period, the colonialists found that the establishment of Vedic anarchism through its village communities as the most difficult barrier to break and could not completely enforce their hegemony.

To know more about Indian anarchist thinkers, please read my reblog on Anarchy India portal.
_________________________________________________________

About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic

The post Vedic Anarchism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.

When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).

For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.

Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.

I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.

What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies?

On one hand, they condemn monopoly of the state. I think it makes sense because monopoly over the means of production is the root cause of all problems in our world.

On the other hand, the tribe believes that a magical constitution would suddenly beget “good governance” administered by a “good government”, out of nowhere, in the complex world.

In this regard, how would they behave with their own dissents if the constitution is deemed as a social contract?   A constitution is just not a rule book but also a “social contract”, which makes citizens (slaves) to pay obligation to their master (government) without signing the agreement et al.

This is where the tribe consciously fail to realise with their own eyes that government is a lie.

Governments are “malum in se” (evil in itself) in their nature and violate the non-aggression principle (an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate).

In this case, let’s assume that taxation is not a legal robbery. Then, why would a ‘limited’ government continue to conscript people’s wealth for the sake of building the roads? What is the fair percentage to consider that taxation is a not a legal theft, when any “illegal” mafia gang can also empower itself to expropriate the people?

While these philosophers continue to claim that the emergence of a government is inevitable and that therefore efforts must be concentrated towards establishing a “minimal government” to protect freedom, but then it cannot prevent its collapse or political suicide without compromising all of its laws and principles.

For example: How would it decide the rate of defence expenditure without inflating the public funds for defence services, which is likely to maximize the monopoly, tax structure and power of the minimal government?

I suggest you to apply the same reasoning/question/logic to “priority sectors” like fiscal policy with reference to populism, monetary policy with reference to printing machine, and property rights with reference to eminent domain.

As the American Experiment has proven, a mechanism like constitutional check-and-balance has not been successful in stemming the tide of governmental expansion. Checks and balances are not enough to successfully distract the members of the ruling class from their convergent interests, since, checks or not, they are still all part of the same parasitical entity.

An exterior standard alone is also not sufficient to stop the governmental expansion. A piece of paper or constitution is only somewhat obeyed as long as its legitimacy remains: the more misinterpreted and controversial it becomes, the least protection it affords against the government’s expansion.

To conclude, coercion cannot produce cooperation.

My facebook note highlights a case of the minimal government sustaining corporatism. Governments are not, and cannot, be based on consent. It is mathematically impossible to maintain a government over a territory of any considerable size without imposing some non-consensual rules.

Furthermore, no government has ever been founded on consent. All governments are based on the necessity for victorious warring factions to organize the taking of tribute from conquered factions, to make organized theft less risky and more profitable. All other governments derived from those have come to existence through ruling class conflicts or colonial politics.

In short, consent of the vast majority of people is nowhere involved in the process of government-creation.

About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic

The post Diet Coke of Fascism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

When I say that “you are an anarchist” then it does not mean that I am enforcing a conclusion on your soul. I am simply letting you know that everyone, at least sometimes, is an anarchist.

Many people seem to believe that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed terrorists who just want to blow everything up. On the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anarchists are simply individuals who believe that human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable and voluntary fashion without having to be forced to. It is genuinely a very lucid notion. But it’s one that the government and their supporters have always found extremely perilous.

To qualify the criteria for what I said, the following two elementary assumptions should be better enough:

1. Humans are, under mundane circumstances, about as rational and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how.
2. Power corrupts. Even if it is minimal, it tends to corrupt absolutely. The opposite of this setting is anarchism. It is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency and accountable freedom that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions.

My fellow anarchist David Graeber believes that the most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Every decent individual believes that s/he is capable of behaving reasonably. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails: 1) Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist, 2) Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist, 3) Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it freely. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this.

Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a voluntary, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a voluntary society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

If anyone says they like government, ask them how they feel when it gets directly involved in their life. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic

The post Yes, You are an Anarchist appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Earth Day was sparked in response to the 1969 Oil spill in Santa Barbara, Commie-fornia. Of course, this makes government sound so noble. Who doesn’t want to celebrate Earth?  Take a closer look at the story. Government had its hand all over the oil spill and was even profiting from it via land leasing.  

1953 saw the passing of the U.S. Submerged Land Act. This Act gave the federal government claim to land beginning at an imaginary 3 mile mark from a state coastline. Then the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act which gave the Secretary of the Interior the power to lease the land out to companies.   $21 million was the winning bid to drill for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara. $21 million in 1966 would equate to $157.8 million dollars in 2016.

Since the land is leased then the goal becomes complete exploitation of the resources.  What company wants to pay for the leasing rights to an area for a long period of time? $21 million isn’t exactly a small amount of money.  So this then incentivizes the completely leasing the property to exploit the resources as quickly as possible.   Government involvement invited corruption in the form of donations to politicians in exchange for leasing rights.  

Union Oil asked the U.S Geological Survey to waive certain restrictions  regarding drilling on the well that would eventually lead to the blowout.  Union Oil asked for the regulations about proper piping safety housing on their 5th well to be waived Given the cronyism created via the federal land leasing, there is incentive for government to help these companies out in such a manner.  Leasing the land creates an incentive for the company to extract as much as of the resource as possible causing the company to extend beyond the markets natural protector.  The markets natural protector is called optimal conservation.

Optimal conservation forces a company to think about the long term course of a product.  Under the government model the company doesn’t know if it’s lease will be renewed, and thus we get the desire to extract as much as possible and that might involve cutting corners in order to reach that final goal before the year is out.  We saw the corners cut by Union Oil, and we have a government complicit in allowing the act.   The end result was Earth Day which ultimately led to the creation of one of the worst government polluters known as the Environmental Protection Agency.

If you fast forward to the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf then you’d see the story is almost the exact same as the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. The government removed regulations regarding off shore drilling, and then we get a disaster.  That makes it sound like we should keep the regulations in place, but the real answer is that the government shouldn’t be paying companies to complete projects because it invites inefficiency.

BP was one of the largest fuel suppliers to the military, and in 2009 BP was awarded 26 contracts estimated at over $2.2 billion.  If BP had to use their own money then they wouldn’t make such a risky move regarding where to drill.  Considering the difficulties surrounding deepsea drilling then it becomes obvious that it would more expensive and less efficient to drill at depths than to drill in shallow waters.  This isn’t always the case.  Some occasions would require drilling at depths, but if it’s done with  the companies own dime then they will work toward the most efficient method possible.

Other examples that can be traced to government are the draining of the Everglades in southern Florida. The 1904 election for governor of Florida saw Napolian B.Broward running on a campaign promise to drain the Everglades.  Broward raised the money for the project by getting the federal government to contribute the funds.   Broward lived through the reconstruction period of America, so it’s no shocker that he saw the federal government as a means to fund such a project. This is a good time to mention Linolcn sucked, and so did his love of “internal improvement” since they invite such horrible ideas like draining a large section a state for speculative purposes.

The last examplin which the US government shines the most in its effort to be the biggest Earth Day hypocrite, it is war. The absolute destruction of vegetation during Vietnam with the massive carpet bombing campaigns, the nuclear tests, the use of depleted uranium shells in Iraq, and countless other military adventures.  In the end the government remains the biggest culprit when it comes to destroying the very Earth it claims to be saving.  

The post Another Holiday Created By The Biggest Culprit appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

A Review of New Republic article:  The United States of Work

Most of these articles start out with “Income has remained stagnant since the 1970s.” But then never offer up an explanation. It’s not a coincidence. Nixon ended Bretton Woods 1971.

As far as college, the more aggressively you increase the demand for something, the more aggressively the price for that product is going to increase if the supply remains relatively stagnant. The U.S. government has began massively subsidizing and guaranteeing student loans for decades which has caused this massive price inflation. The Department of Education now relies on income from student loan debt, so the bubble will keep going. It is exactly like the housing bubble. “We just want everyone to have a good home/ education.”

The author seems to think that unions are the reason people don’t have to work 12-hours a day. As if people all the sudden didn’t want to do that. Or as if people all the sudden didn’t want to shove their children in coal mines. This would imply that the reason places like the Congo have so much child labor is because of a lack of child labor laws, or if they simply implemented a 40-hour work week, or $15 higher minimum wage, they would all be rich. Obviously, this would simply cause more desperation poverty. The reality is technological advances (almost exclusively created by free markets) are how overall work hours are decreased. This has been the case since the beginning of time.

Not long ago, the majority of households were able to live with only one income earner. Now with the combination of the excessive taxes, most notably the income tax, as well as inflation, dual income households are the majority.

“Unlike the state, these private governments are able to wield power with little oversight, because the executives and boards of directors that rule them are accountable to no one but themselves.” This is just laughable. The state is god. If you boycott the military, men with guns will come to your house and murder you. At this point, to claim that the government operates with any oversight just shows you were the author is coming from. It’s just Marxism. Meanwhile, the Uber CEO single-handled solved drinking and driving and yells at an employee and people boycott. If they don’t, they have the ability to.

“Yet because employment contracts create the illusion that workers and companies have arrived at a mutually satisfying agreement..” This is a logical imperative when people voluntarily interact. “I am doing this because I prefer to do it/ I believe it will be in my best interest. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t.” Any unfair advantage other than that is always caused by the state, and therefore that is the enemy. It’s not Apple and Samsung who will come to your house with guns if you don’t work for them.

These articles are always written by people who have little or no entrepreneurial experience. The reason for this is that when you go down that route, you realize you have no real control as business owner. The customer decides everything. Unless, of course, you partner with the state via regulations that prohibit competitors from entering the market, or you receive funding from tax dollars. Then, you are no longer to the customers demand and they are now your subjects.

“Lecturer of art history at the University of Melbourne. Author of Do What You Love. And Other Lies about Success and Happiness.”

The post A Review of: The United States of Work appeared first on Actual Anarchy.