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.

We live in prosperous times.

Our water is clean and sewage free, transportation is readily available, communication is instantaneous, and entertainment is available on demand.

We live in a world of rapid communication and wondrous new technologies. There are people here in the world whom I have never met in person, yet we have had wonderful discussions, we have shared hopes and even some dreams. We have collaborated on projects and we have exchanged ideas and argued points. These people are my friends and they are no different than the people with whom I share my “normal” life.

I just completed a terminal degree. I stopped working and through the powers of technology I was able to research and publish a dissertation, without having to attend classes in person. In fact I completed all three of my college degrees through the internet, no one can tell from my diploma that I am any different than any other graduate of that school.

After composing music for 35 years, I realized my lifelong dream and released a CD. The album is available on BandCamp, they are a company that simply takes a small percentage of what I collect to provide me an avenue of distribution. Years ago, I would have had no avenue to even consider recording my music, today I can do it in the privacy of my home office/studio for a minimal investment (maybe a month’s salary altogether).

I have access to the works of the great philosophers through online resources (like Liberty Classroom) that provide structured self-paced classes for a very small fee.

I order food, music, fountain pens, movies, car parts, motorcycle parts and countless other things online and it is delivered to my door, even on Sundays.

I study philosophy, theology, history, physics and countless other subjects online. A guy like me who started off a blue-collar worker (I was an electrician for the first ten years of my adult life) has moved on to academia. I am starting a new job with a major corporation this month (the application and one of the interviews were online). Decades ago I would have been dismissed as “reaching above my station.”

Over the half century of my life doors have not just been opened:

They have been knocked down and destroyed:

We can reject the pabulum fed to us by approved sources and go around them and read primary sources, hear interviews from eyewitnesses, and come to our own conclusions. We do not have to accept the approved truth, socialize with people that do not share our values, or accept the status quo.

We can watch the television shows we want to watch, when we want to watch them and we can talk to whomever we want to. Our circles of friends and family are no longer dictated by geography.

Whether you share my beliefs or not, every single day in this modern world is a blessing. Yes, I have faced hardship, I have struggled to find food (when I was in my late teens) and I do not dispute that life is still very hard.

But humankind has never had it better. Please for all that is good and holy, embrace the change. Encourage young adults to provide the world with intelligent and free thinking rule breakers.

They can take this wonderful gift we have been given called modern life and turn it into so much more! In the words of that brilliant philosopher Louis Armstrong:

WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD!

Support our site by clicking through our Amazon link to make your purchases.

The post Have Hope: It is a Wonderful Time to be Alive appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Why?  Because it’s the horseshoe theory.

Where do we get to see this theory? Well, it is everywhere. It’s just that you don’t choose to look beyond what you think.

How to spot this theory in action? I think there’s no special qualification required to fulfill this criteria.

All you have to do is to grasp the logic, and that is:

“there is no difference between the left-government (communism) and the right-government (democracy)”.

If you believe that there is a huge difference between both then you are stupid enough to not endorse the features of horseshoe theory.

In political science (not rocket science), the horseshoe theory asserts that the left and the right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.

In 2008, Josef Joffe, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank, wrote,

“Will globalization survive the gloom? The creeping revolt against globalization actually preceded the crash of 2008. Everywhere in the West, populism began to show its angry face at mid-decade. The two most dramatic instances were Germany and Austria, where populist parties scored big with a message of isolationism, protectionism, and redistribution. In Germany, it was left-wing populism; in Austria, it was a bunch of right-wing parties that garnered almost 30% in the 2008 election. Left and right together illustrated once more the “horseshoe” theory of modern politics: As the iron is bent backward, the two extremes almost touch.”

Communism relies on a strong central government that says that citizens should work for the collective good (the people) and wealth should be redistributed equally. In another galaxy, democracy ( a mild version of communism) relies on a so-called strong decentralized government that says that citizens should work for the collective good (the state) and wealth should be redistributed equally. They may camouflage and manipulate you to believe in their own so-called [different] agenda but the principle behind this agenda is the expropriation, conscription, and infringement of your personal and economic liberty. Overall, they both do not make sense because they are ultimately the road to serfdom.

Ideologists from the left and right intend to expand the power of their monopolist (government) – at the expense of everyone else – but who pays for the cost? It’s you, stupid. Defending one against the other is a sign of Hegelian dialectics. It simply begets the culture of backfire effect, in your discussion, and nothing else. My previous blog highlights the feature of the left vs right politics.

Your real enemy is authoritarianism. The left-fascist and the right-fascist are driven by the principles of “situational leninism” (it’s good, when I do it. It’s bad, when you do it).

On a conclusive note, there is no difference between communism and democracy, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, democracy — by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. It’s high time that you walk out from the political spectrum because you’re an anarchist.

Left and right are different sides of the same coin.
________________________________________________________
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 It’s the Horseshoe Theory, Stupid appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Misunderstanding anarchism is also an auxiliary activity of the mainstream media, public schools, bureaucrats, politicians, and the ignorant populace.

Their imagination isn’t only limited to the belief that ‘government is a magical institution’ but it also extended to the practice that everyone else should also survive within the limits of their perspectives.  If you attempt to reason or discourse with them then they will ensure that you’re ashamed and defamed.

Thus, the burden of proof is not on the anarchists to prove “why freedom is vital” but on the pro-slavery advocates to prove “why people should be forced to live in a system of organised chaos (government)”. 

Worse, some who call themselves “anarchists” don’t even know the meaning of the term. These people fall, in general, into three classes:

1) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the society with collectivism spirit, wherein “anarchists” should not be allowed to reap fruits from their own labor,

2) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the ‘welfare policies of Stalin’ with the ‘welfare policies of Mao’, and

3) advocating that the state should be abolished and then replacing the society with ‘Trump’.

Therefore, it is also necessary to save anarchism from such “anarchists”.

Many ignoramuses continue to believe that “anarchism is terrorism” because they’re taught to believe that anarchists blow up the buildings, bridges and ‘roads’. This is the height of today’s modern education, in fact.

Anarchists are not the ‘violent creatures’ who believe that people have a compulsory obligation to follow incoherent and illusionary ideologies like republicanism, communism or parliamentary democracy. Instead, anarchists are the ‘voluntary creatures’ who intend to tranquilly denounce the general belief i..e “there should be rulers to police, discipline and indoctrinate the populace”.

Please note that anarchism is not an anti-freedom philosophy that calls for the initiation of violence on peaceful people who simply disagree or dissent, otherwise, why do you think the government officials had such a hard time defining the word “terrorism”?

The answer is that every time they defined the word ‘terrorism’ they admitted to this stunning fact that the government’s action utilises the use of terror on peaceful people. A government can only survive via the initiation of violence of individual’s property rights.

Without the use of terrorism, the government would cease to exist, and a propertarian society would ensue wherein peaceful people are free to do as they wish as long as they don’t infringe on others. In social relations between people, certain voluntary social norms will have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfill a freely accepted agreement.

In this case, it is advisable to ratiocinate [form judgments by a process of logic; reason] that:  anarchism is not anti-rules, but anti-rulers.

To sum up, anarchism is self-government (or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government is the best form of government, which people rarely talk about because they have more faith in a ‘few strangers’ ruling them and others at the expense of everyone else.

Self-government starts with self-discipline. If you cannot discipline yourself then you have no right to misunderstand anarchism. You can move to North Korea to get policed morally and bodily before bashing the theory of anarchism for the sake of criticism.

The post Misunderstanding Anarchism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Hinton Bowers

Summer is fast approaching and now that our tummies are sculpted and legs toned, it’s time for break-up season! As a resident of California, I’ve heard a lot of talk about #Calexit for months now following the November election:

I However, do not favor Federal Secession at this time.

I’m really not interested in humoring temper tantrums. If there were some deep, principled argument being put forward by the liberty minded people of this state, I would feel more sympathetic;

but, let’s not pretend or hope that Calexit is about anything other than…

“I didn’t get my way, so I need a safe space!”

Breaking from The Union, and it’s constitutional protections for the individual (shaky as those rights may be these days), would be the wrong move for California residents. Were secession to pass: between Governor ‘Moonbeam’ and Commissar Feinstein, every non-conformist living in the state would probably be rounded up by SJW storm troopers and interned in ‘pelican bay’ by the end of the year. Would you trust them to draw-up your constitutional charter? To be your new Washington or Jefferson?

F*ck no, you wouldn’t.

The Constitution doesn’t directly mention unilateral secession, but it’s worth noting that the Supreme Court has ruled it to be illegal in the Texas v. White case; then a few years later, seems to contradict itself in Williams v. Bruffy. So who knows!

However, legal secession is clear, though highly improbable; it’s possible by amending the constitution.

In order for Californian secession to ‘prevail’, here’s what we would need:

• The Calexit referendum needs to pass and be signed into law. (But we’re not done yet…)
• A two-thirds vote would also be needed by each US Congressional branch.
• Or, a special constitutional convention could be formed by all 50 states for this specific purpose, where it would require a two-thirds vote in order to ratify California’s intent to secede.

So ‘dream on’, because a state vote for secession only begins the process of removal, it’s basically DOA…

But the Calexit movement is right about one thing:

Californians do need to secede; but from Sacramento instead.

Of course: I’m a HUGE fan of decentralization; with localization, people can correctly identify problems, and have a stronger impact on their communities; but more importantly, they would have control over their own lives and choices.

What are you to do though, when your state government is too centralized as well?

For those who may live outside of our ‘great commonwealth’, or for the locals who may not be aware: every few years a proposition is put forward to divide the state of California into several individual states. Though still linked to the federal government; this division would give every state it’s own charter, governor, congress, tax base, and electoral votes.

Now we’re talking! With this measure, every local community could go their own way, and decide their own fate (and have MUCH more impact on federal elections as well… their votes wouldn’t be taken for granted anymore.)

It’s really a ‘win win’ all around. (Of course heavy population centers object to this every time, because they want to have ‘your share’ of the electorate as well as their own…)

Personally, I’ve voted for this ‘break-up’ with Sacramento every single time the ‘prop’ (as we call them) has been on the ballet; and every single time I’ve watched the measure ‘crash and burn’ in spectacular fashion.

But now that secession is ‘hot’ again. It’s time for the majority of Californians to vote for this proposal instead: it’s time to break-up California.

California is not a community, its population is larger and more diverse than many countries in the world; with needs and opinions that vary greatly, it’s communities battle each other over ‘social issues’ and ‘resource allocation’ all the time. From the rural farmers in the central valley who need water for agriculture, to the urban denizens of Los Angeles who want to ‘protect the environment’; there are many blue, but also several red counties here. For many Californians, our elected officials rule from 400 miles away, so they might as well be in Washington, or on the surface of the moon…

I get it, a federal exit sounds sexy. Debating #Calexit is hot! But it’s local government that directly impacts your life as a citizen, and the state of California is not local enough for the people who live here…

The current California government is not democratic at all. It’s terrible at representing it’s own people, literally. When you look at the ratio of representative to resident in the California state house, it’s undeniably the worst in the union:

CA 488,000 to 1 vs. NH 2,006 to 1

The Russian Duma has a better rate of representation per citizen than California does…

Of course, there’s also the matter of personal citizenship. Does California have ‘the right’ to force me to renounce my US citizenship, and adopt their new ‘social contract’ because of my zip code? Even if I won’t vote for it? Or agree with anything they’re doing? I don’t believe they have that right.

On the bright-side, however, it’s very possible, even inevitable, that a federal ‘secession move’ by California would lead to the immediate break-up of the state, due to the differences listed above.

West Virginia came about that way…

“Then Hinton, if you support decentralization, why don’t you support #calexit!”

Why would Californians want to trade one ‘centrally planned’ state for what could easily become a more controlling ‘centrally planned’ nation run by people who live hundreds of miles away?

I also have many concerns about post-succession. It would be a logistical nightmare severing from the Federal Government, both in practicality and Ideology. Who’s to say that Gov. Jerry Brown or whoever the new ‘premiere’ of the California Republic is: doesn’t impose martial law to keep order? Or suspend representation all together? (Social democracies, of which Calexit would almost certainly draw inspiration from, have an awful track record when it comes to actual democracy. Because, their end goal is socialism; and a silly thing like voting just gets in the way of that…)

I’d rather Californians vote for our local communities from the beginning, and divide the state into manageable clusters where the citizens can have an actual say in the way they are governed, not vote for some ‘Californian nation-state’.

Consider the critical impact that your community has on you; with the adequate amount of representation you would have a real say in how these important local services are implemented:

• How many local taxes are to be collected? How will they be used?
• What kind of policing do you want in your community?
• How will you bring power to the community? Coal? Wind? Nuclear?
• Welfare: Who gets help? Under what conditions?
• What’s being taught to your kids in Public school? Private? Charter?
• Waste disposal?
• Red-light cameras?
• The list goes on, and on…

Whether these services should be privatized or not, the point is that they’re all tasked and completed LOCALLY; and ALL of them have a MASSIVE impact on your quality of life. A #Calbreakup would be the best way to begin a positive change statewide towards enfranchisement of the electorate; by having them take back their power through local control. (perhaps this could eventually spread nationwide also, as people begin to see the effects of better representation in the ‘new states’.)

It saddens me that there aren’t more Libertarians and Ancaps pushing for #Calbreakup instead of Calexit; as I believe the move would be closer to our values long term. This really feels like a case where it’s better to take ‘two leaps of faith’ at once, rather then one leap ‘off-track’. It’s Calbreakup or nothing for me, as I’d rather live a federal-ish structure, than a quasi-fascist state.

But, considering that two-thirds of California doesn’t support federal secession; and that one of the current leaders of the Calexit movement was exposed this week for being a potential Russian agent (Seriously, that’s what they’re reporting); a federal ‘secession move’ will probably remain a ‘California Dream’ for many years if not decades to come.

So hit the beach Mr. and Mrs. California, secure in the knowledge that you have a 488,000 to 1 say in your future…

Can I get a “Hip, hip, Hurray!” for California?

The post Sacramento, I Want a Divorce appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Stop giving up your rights and don’t cede them to a government that cannot defend or protect you.

Ponder on this, since September 11, 2001, Americans (and residents of many other geographic unions) have ceded many of their natural rights to the state in order to assure their safety.

All our phone calls, emails, texts and other communications are monitored.

There are cameras everywhere. There are microphones all over major metropolitan areas. We are told that if we “see something, say something.” In a most Orwellian fashion, travel has become a hassle where we are required to allow ourselves to be molested on a regular basis to ensure our safety.

Yet, there is an “epidemic of violence.”

What we are led to believe by the “media” is that the surveillance state is unable to root these radical elements out. Let’s throw the next pail of fuel onto the fire, we have spent billions and billions of dollars fighting “Islamic radicalism” on foreign soil, so we “don’t have to fight them here.” I propose that these government boondoggles, whether they be perpetual war or the creation of a surveillance state, have had nothing to do with your safety and security and everything to do with transferring wealth and controlling “free” Americans.

In many cases, government agencies funded and armed the very radical elements the military is fighting. Rabbi Daniel Lapin says that if someone tells you there is one answer to any complex issue, you need to be very skeptical. The good Rabbi is correct, we are dealing with a complex situation involving multiple interests, none that involve maintaining the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

I ask that you consider this. Firing up Americans and convincing us that we need to give up our rights seems to be a media standard, do not succumb to their manipulation. Spending our money (that was coopted through coercion) to fight wars without end and without a goal does nothing but create terrorists.

The surveillance state by any measure is a huge failure, if it cannot do the job (and time has proven it cannot) it must be disestablished and the agencies in charge of it must be defunded.

Every person needs to attend classes, purchase a firearm, apply for your concealed carry permit (if you live in an unfree place and you choose to comply) and carry that firearm. You need to train and take follow up classes regularly.

The FBI’s own data shows that the higher the number of CCP holders in an area, the lower the crime.

Please do not become a victim cowering under a table begging for your life. Hope kills!!! and it breaks my heart to know that good people died hoping someone would save them.

In the future, I will be discussing how you can attain a level of freedom in a very unfree society. I begin by asking you to secure yourself, your family and your property.

Waiting for minutes for help from government agents is not a plan to protect anyone, it is a plan for failure. You have the power to defend yourself from an aggressor and you need to have a plan to do so.

Hope is not a plan, yes we leave the house each day hoping not to be accosted by a bad person, we hope he does not get violent, we hope he doesn’t have a gun, and we hope he doesn’t kill us.

You are loved and cherished by someone in this world, please have a plan to stick around for them as long as you can.

I hope you will listen!

The post Hope Kills! Take Charge of your Defense. appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

“We meddle. People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.” – River Tam, Serenity

As I get older I find myself unaligned with any political movement. I have never had much interest in the party steeped in institutional racism, home of the Klan, the Great Society, the party that defines Hispanics as “taco bowl voters.”

I also have found that the party of corporate welfare and social regulation holds no appeal.

The party that purports to represent people like me, runs a series of candidates that seem to take the worst elements of the two major parties, they are not relevant (Bob Barr anyone?).

So where does that leave me?

Outside of Dr. Ron Paul and few others, it leaves me as a person whose views are not even moderately represented. In the tyranny of democracy, people like me are unheard and disregarded. Why?

We want to leave you alone and we want you to leave us alone, you find that offensive.

You meddle.

You impose your viewpoints on me. I want you to be able to do anything you choose to do as long as you do not transgress against another human being or take his private property. You want to spend my money on things you find “worthy.” You want to fund wars, schools, healthcare, surveillance, the drug war, the war on poverty, other nations and corporatism. You want to decide what firearms I own, and you want people with firearms to enforce your viewpoints. You want to decide what natural herbs I may use, and you want people with guns to enforce your viewpoints. You want to decide how I spend my money, and you want people with weapons to enforce your viewpoints. You want to make decisions for me, and you are happy to use violence to make sure that those decisions are carried out.

You don’t want freedom; the concept of liberty is lost on you.

You like government and control if it represents what you believe. When it represents people who disagree with you, it is “bad.” But if you can just get your guy or gal in office, it will all be better. Right?

I say horse feathers!

We had your guy from 1989 to 1993. We had your guy from 1993 to 2001. We had your guy from 2001 to 2009. We had your guy from 2009 to 2017. You have your guy today. Please don’t deny he is your guy, you voted for him. Your guy sucks. If I had a guy he would suck too.

Government is always evil.

Government always restricts freedom. It is force in action, it always transgresses against someone to accomplish its goals. I am unwilling to accept the loss of freedom as collateral damage in your quest to meddle.

If you want war, pick up your rifle and go there. If you want to help the poor, start a soup kitchen. If you want abortion funded, pay for it. If you want to fight crime (most of which is caused by your meddling), join the Guardian Angels of Neighborhood Watch. If you want education funded, volunteer to teach. If you think that the government needs more money, give them more of yours. If you want free college, sponsor a scholarship.

If you are unwilling to give up your money, you are a hypocrite and a thief.

You want a well-armed tax collector to stick a gun in my face and force me to pay for what you want. If you want to meddle, do so out of your pocket, out of your life energy, out of your own initiative. Otherwise, all you are is someone who wants to be the societal equivalent of the playground bully, you want to force others to do what you are unwilling to do because you like to meddle but you are unwilling to pay for your meddling.

Please, go live your own life and stop trying to live mine. I will not intentionally transgress against you, stop transgressing against me. And for goodness sake, stop meddling.

The post You Like to Meddle! appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

I don’t really pay attention to what happens in Hollywood, but I like films (who doesn’t). I particularly enjoyed the murky tone and feeling of Arrival, which won an Oscar in the category of “Best Sound Editing.”

–There are no spoilers in this article–

The film employs an overarching plot device in order to tell a very intimate story of loss, personal conflict, and discovery. In this respect, it is very similar in construction to other recent films like Interstellar [2014] and Moon [2009].

Of course the overarching plot in Arrival is first contact with extraterrestrials, who arrive on Earth in 12 separate, but identical spacecraft. Even though the film itself is about first contact with aliens, the  movie’s overall message has nothing to do with aliens, and instead grapples with questions of determinism and the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis.

However, I wanted to use Arrival to discuss my theory that mankind’s use of government is merely an evolutionary stage in our development as a species–one that we either will, or must outgrow in order to continue our existence.

While the alien species does seem to be organized in some general way, it is not apparent in the film whether if that organization is governmental. There is nothing in the film to suggest that it is. I would argue that interstellar travel would effectively be impossible unless human civilization can shed itself from the yoke of government.

As I touched on in an earlier piece, Star Wars–Rogue One: Why I Wouldn’t Join the Rebel Alliance, I do not think that a single government could encompass an entire planet, much less a planetary system, star cluster, or an entire galaxy.

I believe that the rise of populist nationalism signifies the unsustainable nature of global governance. Across history, humans time and time again have yearned for local governance. There is a reason that colonies almost always become independent nations.

Therefore, the future of human civilization is decentralization or radical secession down to the level of the individual. In fact, this is a necessity if we are to evolve to level I on the Kardashev scale of civilizational advancement and harvest all the Sun’s energy that falls upon Earth.

In fact, this idea was blindly stumbled upon by Stephen Hawking, who isn’t necessarily a champion of liberty. In 2015  he stated that “human aggression could destroy us all.” Did he stumble upon the non-aggression principle?

Stephen Hawking is considered by many to be the most intelligent human being alive, but is wrong from time to time. Politically speaking, he supports universal health care and political action against “climate change.”

He has also been wrong scientifically with his condemnation of the black hole information paradox which relates to the idea of the holographic universe and string theory.

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss Hawking’s 2015 comments below (apologies for the poor audio):

Hopefully the rise of national populist movements is a net-positive for liberty and leads to decentralization, which we know is a  necessary prerequisite for liberty and real human progress.

That concludes today’s content. Thanks for stopping by Liberty Weekly. Have a great Monday evening!

Source: Liberty Weekly

The post “Arrival,” Market Anarchy, and the Kardashev Scale appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

While  I would not consider myself a hardcore fan of the Star Wars franchise (I do not have the benefit of nostalgia), I really enjoyed Rogue One. Why? Because it contains the franchise’s most visceral, realistic depiction of war and grappled with some of my feelings on the role of revolution in libertarian rhetoric.

According to the Star Wars Fandom Wiki, the Rebel Alliance’s main goals are to fight the Galactic Empire and restore the Old Republic. This shakes out to be a constitutional democratic republic, mirroring the system that we currently see in the United States, with a federal government in control of the federal leviathan and state, or local governments in control of planets or planetary systems.

I would not bind myself to the Rebel Alliance for several reasons.

First is that war, even in the interest of propagating liberty, is not to be celebrated. As we have previously discussed in Liberty Weekly, mankind has a natural, deep set tendency for peace.

Second: Even without the emergence of the First Order, the Rebel Alliance would quickly turn into the Empire. As highlighted in the events of Rogue One, the rebellion is not an ideologically pure movement. I won’t go into spoilers (who hasn’t seen the film at this point), but the rebel alliance does some pretty evil things.

Third: Why would the local planetary bodies in Star Wars even need to band together for any reason other than mutual security? A federal government with the power to encompass several star systems would, by nature, be a terrifying force against liberty and would never work.

In the real world, tremendous cracks are emerging in the foundations of the movement for global, or universal governance.  While not necessarily in favor of liberty, emerging national populist movements should make clear to all that one-size-fits-all solutions and large government undermine popular sovereignty by depriving individuals of self-rule (or the illusion thereof).

In order to maintain the New Republic and enforce its rule,  the Rebel Alliance would–by necessity–become the Empire. With its unprincipled behavior on display in Rogue One, the precedent is already there. Once the federal level of the New Republic is given power, it would be ripe for corruption.

Likewise, I would never support an armed rebellion against the government, even if it was principled in strict voluntarist ethics (defending my own life, liberty, and property from IMMINENT attack is another story).

The very process of rebellion would corrupt the rebellion. War is the game (and the health) of the state, not of peaceful people. Besides, while the state itself is evil, the state’s actors are just individual people acting in their own self-interest. Local policemen do not deserve to be killed for carrying out failed state policies.

The good news is that we don’t have to rebel against the government (and I would suspect that the Rebel Alliance wouldn’t have to either), because these governments defeat themselves from within. Could you imagine what central banking magic would emerge from the New Republic? The very thought of it makes me laugh.

Source: Liberty Weekly

The post Star Wars–Rogue One: Why I Wouldn’t Join the Rebel Alliance appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Being a commonly misunderstood fellow, I am often wrongly accused of many things. The number of times I have been accused of wanting to get rid of roads is uncountable and the times I have been thought of as selfish or uncaring on account of my apprehension to support government welfare is likely nearly as many.

Many people will say things like, “We can do better as a society” – or – “We need to help those in need.” It is a considerable misconception to think I disagree with these statements.

Frédéric Bastiat summed it up well:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Society is a group of people who work together for the benefit of one another. Government is an organization that interferes in society.

Passing new laws and regulations is not “progressive”. It is a band-aid on the perceived wounds of society. People often turn to government to cover up society’s problems instead of addressing the root issue within society, which coincidentally usually happens to be caused by government interference in the first place.

“Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us” -Leo Tolstoy

Within a society, human interaction that is recognized as legitimate is done voluntarily. Government is different. Every law that is passed is ultimately enforced with violence or the threat of violence. In order to spend money on welfare, the state must first collect resources by coercion. We are forced to pay or we will face the consequences. Unlike in society, there is no choice. We must do as the state says, or we will be punished with fines or jail time. And if we refuse to pay the fines or go to jail, violence will be used upon us.

I am not opposed to roads. I am opposed to a government monopoly on something as vital as transportation. I cringe at the sight of traffic jams at rush hour and daydream about all the innovation and efficient use of resources the competition of a free market would provide. To think that a private road owner in a free market could stand to lose a small fortune in lost revenue from a traffic jam is laughable.

I am not opposed to charity. I am opposed to money being taken by force, given mostly to bureaucrats, wasted on counter-productive government programs, with the scraps going to those whom central planners decide needs it. I want charitable companies to compete against each other to see how well they can spend donations on actually helping people. And I want individuals to take an interest in their community and neighbors, instead of being told the welfare of the needy is a government affair.

I want parents to be able to take time off work, but I don’t want paid parental leave to be enforced with government coercion. We can work towards a society that values the family without succumbing to the temptation of mandatory paid time off that is backed up by government force.

I want to know what’s in my food, but I don’t need a law forcing companies to label GMOs. If people value food that is labeled, companies will voluntarily react to that demand.

…And so on and so on.

We do not progress by legislating new forms of coercion. We progress by being the change we want to see in the world. If you want to make a change for the better in our neighborhoods, communities, and our society, do it! Don’t succumb to the temptation to wield the great violent powers of government as a replacement for societal advancement.

This article originally appeared at Minnesotans for Liberty

For more content like this, please check out the Principled Libertarian on Facebook. Give them a like and tell them Actual Anarchy sent ya!

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

The post The Confusion Between Government and Society appeared first on Actual Anarchy.